/?/>£. 
THE    NONJUBOES 

THEIR    LIVES,    PRINCIPLES,    AND 
WRITINGS 


BY 

J.  H.  OVERTON,  D.D. 

KKCTOi;      OF      GUMLEY,      AND      CANON      OF      LINCOLN 


NEW  YORK 

THOMAS    WHITTAKER 

1903 


PBEFACE 


It  has  been  my  aim  in  this  book  to  disentangle,  as  far 
as  possible,  the  ecclesiastical  from  the  political  question  ; 
to  trace  the  history  of  the  Nonjurors,  as  a  religious 
community,  from  the  time  of  their  temporary  alienation 
from,  to  the  time  of  their  reabsorption  in,  the  old  Church 
of  England,  of  which  they  contended  that  they  had 
always  been  the  most  consistent  and  faithful  mem- 
bers ;  to  give  the  reader  a  clear  and  definite  impression 
of  the  personalities  of  all  the  chief  actors ;  and,  finally,  to 
bring  into  prominence  the  later  phase  of  the  movement, 
which  appears  to  be  little  known,  though  it  certainly  has 
a  distinct  interest  of  its  own. 

The  nature  of  the  work,  which  I  have  perhaps  too 
presumptuously  undertaken,  has  rendered  it  necessary 
for  me  to  write  many  letters  and  to  consult  many 
manuscripts — in  other  words,  to  give,  I  fear,  much 
trouble  to  many  people  ;  and  it  is  my  pleasing  duty  to 
express  here  my  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  uni- 
form courtesy  of  all  who  have  assisted  me.  They  are 
(in  alphabetical  order)  the  Hon.  Mrs.  Bulkeley-Owen ; 
the  EeVc  E.  E.  G.  Cole,  rector  of  Doddington ;  the  Eev. 
Canon  Cooper,  vicar  of  Cuckfield ;  the  Eight  Eev. 
J.  Dowden,  Bishop  of  Edinburgh ;  the  Eev.  J.  L.  Fish, 


vi  THE  NONJURORS 

rector  of  St.  Margaret  Pattens;  the  Eev.  J.  R.  Hake- 
will,  rector  of  Braybrooke;  H.  Jenner,  Esq.,  British 
Museum;  the  Eev.  W.  D.  Macray,  Litt.D.,  Bodleian 
Library;  Professor  J.  E.  B.  Mayor  and  J.  Bass  Mul- 
linger,  Esq.,  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge  ;  W. 
Phillips,  Esq.,  Shrewsbury  ;  the  Eev.  F.  W.  Eagg,  vicar 
of  Marsworth ;  the  Eev.  F.  Sanders,  vicar  of  Hoylake ; 
the  Eev.  E.  M.  Serjeantson,  St.  Sepulchre's,  North- 
ampton ;  the  Eev.  E.  W.  Taylor,  rector  of  Wouldham ; 
and  the  Eev.  W.  E.  Watson,  rector  of  Saltfleetby 
St.  Peter's. 

Printed  matter  may  be  regarded  as  publici  juris  ;  but 
there  is  one  printed  work  to  which  I  feel  bound  to  refer. 
Mr.  Lathbury's  '  History  of  the  Nonjurors '  has  stood 
alone  for  many  years  as  the  one  book  which  dealt 
exclusively  with  the  subject,  and  I  desire  to  acknowledge 
my  great  indebtedness  to  it;  but  more  than  half  a 
century  has  elapsed  since  its  publication,  and  there  seems 
to  be  need  of  another  •  work,  not  to  supersede,  but  to 
supplement  it. 

November  1002. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

I.  A    GENERAL   INTRODUCTION  .... 

II.  THE    DEPRIVED    FATHERS 

III.  BISHOPS    OF    THE    NEW   CONSECRATION 

IV.  THE   NONJURING    CLERGY 

V.  THE    NONJURING   LAITY 

VI.  NONJURING    MODES    OF    WORSHIP    . 

VII.  THE  LATER  NONJURORS 

VIII.  THE    TWO   IRREGULAR   SUCCESSIONS 

IX.  THE    NONJURORS    AND    GENERAL    LITERATURE       . 

X.  THE    NONJURORS    IN    SCOTLAND       . 

XI.  THE    NONJURORS   AND   THE    EASTERN    CHURCH     . 

AN     ALPHABETICAL     LIST     OF     NONJURORS,     CLERICAL 
AND    LAY    


PAGE 

1 
23 
84 
153 

228 
280 
309 
346 
377 
418 
451 

467 

497 


PORTRAIT   GROUP    OF   THE    SEVEN    BISHOPS     .     Frontispiece 


THE    NONJURORS 

CHAPTER   I 

A    GENEEAL   INTRODUCTION 

"  Perhaps  the  time  has  come  when  we  may  venture,  without 
offence  or  loss  of  intellectual  caste,  to  challenge  the  vulgar 
verdict  upon  the  Nonjurors,  and  may  at  least  call  on  their 
censors  to  name  any  English  sect  so  eminent,  in  proportion  to 
its  numbers,  alike  for  solid  learning  and  for  public  as  well  as 
private  virtues.  Faction  has  too  long  been  allowed  to  visit  the 
violence  of  a  few  hotspurs  on  the  entire  class  of  loyal  subjects, 
not  merely  by  ruining  them  while  living,  but  also  by  blackening 
their  memory  to  this  hour.  The  caricatures  of  hireling  libellers 
pass  current  with  most  as  the  final  judgment  of  posterity  ; 
phantoms  which  will  never  be  laid  till  brought  face  to  face  with 
the  authentic  forms  which  they  personate  and  defame."  ' 

Moke  than  thirty  years  have  elapsed  since  these  words 
were  written  by  one  of  the  most  finished  scholars  of  the 
day ;  and  everything  that  has  appeared  during  the  interval 
has  tended  to  confirm  the  high  estimate  which  he  then 
formed  of  this  interesting  body  of  men.  Many  will  dis- 
agree with  their  ecclesiastical,  still  more,  perhaps,  with 
their  political  views ;  but  as  to  their  learning  and  their 
virtues,  the  two  points  on  which  Professor  Mayor  lays 
stress,  the  more  that  facts  come  to  light,  the  more  con- 
vinced will  an  impartial  critic  be  that  they  are  not  unduly 
praised  by  him. 

1  Life  of  Ambrose  Bonwicke,  by  his  Father ;  edited  by  J.  E.  B.  Mayor. 
1870.     To  the  Header  (by  the  Editor). 

B 


2  THE   NONJURORS 

Now,  learning  and  virtue  are  not  so  common  that  we 
can  afford  to  let  signal  instances  of  both  in  a  whole  body 
of  men  slip  into  oblivion  without  a  distinct  loss ;  so  that, 
even  if  the  history  of  the  Nonjurors  were  merely  the 
history  of  a  bygone  phase  of  thought  and  action  which  is 
now  obsolete,  it  would  still  be  worth  writing.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  the  turn  of  the  wheel  during  the  last  quarter 
of  a  century  has  brought  the  position  of  the  Nonjurors 
(as  Churchmen,  not  as  politicians)  into  much  greater  pro- 
minence, and  caused  it  to  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  the 
present  state  of  the  Church.  It  is  hoped,  therefore,  that 
no  apology  is  needed  for  drawing  attention  to  their  history. 

To  begin  at  the  beginning  : 

By  the  term  Nonjurors  is  meant,  in  the  first  instance, 
chose  Churchmen  whose  consciences  would  not  allow  them 
to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  William  and  Mary  after 
the  Kevolution  of  1688,  because  they  had  previously 
taken  similar  oaths  to  James  II.,  and  who  sacrificed 
their  incomes  and  future  prospects  in  consequence.  The 
death  of  James  II.  in  1701  did  not  release  them  from  their 
obligation ;  for  they  had  sworn  to  be  faithful,  not  only  to 
the  King  himself,  but  to  •  his  heirs  and  lawful  successors.' 
Indeed,  their  difficulty  was  greatly  intensified,  because  an 
Act  of  Parliament  was  quickly  passed  requiring  them 
1  to  abjure  the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales,'  whom  they 
honestly  believed  to  be  the  '  lawful  heir  '  of  James  II., 
and  to  acknowledge  William  III.  and  each  of  his  suc- 
cessors, according  to  the  Act  of  Settlement,  as  '  rightful 
and  lawful  King  ' ;  and  in  this  form  the  oath  was  made  a 
necessary  qualification  for  every  employment  either  in 
Church  or  State.1 

'  Previously  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  William  ami  Mary  hud  expressly 
omitted  the  words  'rightful  and  lawful'  which  occurred  in  former  oaths,  in 
Order  that  it  might  embrace  those  who  were  willing  to  acknowledge  the 
new    overeigns  as  sovereigns  tUfactO,  though  not  ilrjiuc. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

On  the  accession  of  George  I.  in  1714  another  Act 
was  passed  requiring  everyone  who  held  any  public  post 
of  more  value  than  51.  a  year  to  declare  his  belief  on  oath 
that  '  George  was  rightful  and  lawful  king,  and  that  the 
person  pretending  to  be  Prince  of  Wales  had  not  any 
right  or  title  whatsoever.'  Those  who  refused  to  take 
the  oaths  of  1701-2  and  1714  were  sometimes  called 
'  Non-Abjurors '  to  distinguish  them  from  the  Nonjurors 
who  refused  the  original  oaths  of  1689  ;  but  substantially 
they  all  belonged  to  the  same  party  and  acted  on  the 
same  principle,  so  there  is  no  need  to  dwell  on  the  dis- 
tinction at  present. 

As  the  practical  outcome  of  their  conduct  was  that 
they  were  deprived  of  their  posts,  whether  lay  or  clerical, 
on  account  of  their  refusal  to  take  the  necessary  oaths, 
the  term  '  Nonjuror '  is  a  correct  enough  designation  of 
them  so  far  as  it  goes.  At  the  same  time,  it  gives  a  very 
inadequate  notion  of  their  principles,  which  extended 
much  farther  than  to  a  conscientious  objection  to  take 
fresh  oaths  in  contradiction  to  those  they  had  previously 
taken.  Quite  apart  from  the  oaths,  the  Nonjurors — and,  it 
must  be  confessed,  many  also  who  were  not  Nonjurors — 
were  quite  precluded  by  principles  they  had  long  professed 
from  accepting  either  King  William,  or  Queen  Mary,  or 
Queen  Anne,  or,  above  all,  King  George  as  their  sovereign. 

To  appreciate  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  we  must  go 
back  to  an  earlier  period.  Rightly  or  wrongly  (and  I  am 
by  no  means  prepared  to  say  'rightly'),  the  doctrine  of 
passive  obedience  or  non-resistance  (the  two  expressions 
mean  practically  the  same  thing)  to  those  monarchs  who 
had  the  divine,  hereditary,  indefeasible  right  had  long  been 
considered  not  only  as  a  doctrine,  but  as  the  peculiar 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England — that  is,  the  doctrine 
which  distinguished  English  Churchmen  from  '  papists ' 


4  THE   NONJURORS 

on  the  one  hand  who  set  the  Pope,  and  '  plebists '  on 
the  other  who  set  the  people,  above  the  Lord's  anointed.1 
Those  who  held  this  doctrine  appealed  to  Holy  Scripture, 
both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  They  applied 
the  principles  of  the  patriarchal  government  and  of  the 
Mosaic  law  to  the  existing  state  of  affairs  in  England. 
They  contended  that  kings  were  fathers  of  their  people, 
and  ought  to  be  implicitly  obeyed  as  such.  They  appealed 
to  the  government  of  the  chosen  people  which  was  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Almighty;  to  the  precepts  and  practice 
of  our  Blessed  Lord  and  of  His  Apostles ;  to  the  Church 
in  its  earliest  and  purest  ages  ;  to  the  formularies  of  their 
own  Church,  especially  to  the  Homilies,  the  Articles,  and 
the  Canons.  '  The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man  '  taught 
the  same  doctrine,  and  the  post-Reformation  period 
furnished  many  confirmations  of  it.  The  great  casuist, 
Robert  Sanderson,  taught  it  in  very  strong  terms  ; 2  several 
Acts  of  Parliament,  passed  between  the  Restoration  and 
the  Revolution,  condemn  all  resistance,  and  in  such  terms 
as  to  exclude  any  exceptions  ;  Sir  Robert  Filmer's  theories 
of  government  met  with  wide  acceptance  ;  the  University 
of  Oxford  stamped  with  its  authority  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance  by  three  distinct  and  formal  decrees  of  its 
Convocation,  in  1G22,  1647,  and  1G83  respectively,  the 
last  pronouncing  resistance  '  a  damnable  doctrine.' 

Strange  to  say,  none  had  committed  themselves  more 
distinctly  to  the    doctrine  of   non-resistance  than    those 

1  See  Preface  to  Film,  r's  '  Mixed  Monarchy,'  in  The  Political  Discourses 
of  Sir  R.  Filmer,  published  in  1  (ISO,  twenty -seven  years  after  the  writer's 
death. 

'  For  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Sanderson  and  the  others  referred  to,  see 
Compleal  History  of  the  Affair  of  Dr.  Saeheeer,-U,  p.  1 10,  where  all  are 

given  at  a  glance,  with  chapter  and  verse  for  each.  Also,  The  History,/ 
Passive  Obedience  sine,  the  Reformation  (1689),  where  quotations  from  a 
vast  number  of  authors  of  all  schools  in  the  Chureh  in  EftVOUX  of  the 
doctrine  are  given  verbatim. 


V 


INTRODUCTION  5 

who  afterwards  became  the  staunchest  supporters,  on 
the  ecclesiastical  side,  of  the  Revolution.  Tillotson  and 
Burnet x  had  impressed  it  upon  poor  Lord  William  Russell, 
when  he  was  under  sentence  of  death,  as  if  it  were  an 
article  of  faith,  without  the  explicit  acceptance  of  which 
there  could  hardly  be  any  hope  of  salvation.  Tenison 
did  the  same  when  ministering  to  the  unfortunate  Duke 
of  Monmouth  before  his  execution.  Stillingfleet  defended 
it  with  his  usual  force  and  ability ;  so  did  Patrick ;  so 
did  Beveridge ;  so  did  White  Kennett ;  and  all  these 
accepted  bishoprics  under  the  Revolution  settlement  which 
to  the  ordinary  mind  seems  absolutely  irreconcilable  with 
it.  William  Sherlock,  afterwards  Master  of  the  Temple 
and  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  wrote  in  1684  one  of  the  ablest 
defences  of  it  in  its  extremest  form — '  The  Case  of  Re-  ■'•■ 
sistance  '■ — and  six  years  later  an  equally  able  treatise  in 
opposition  to  it — '  The  Case  of  Allegiance.' 

It  was  the  same  with  clergy  of  a  lower  rank.  What 
the  Nonjuring  Dean  Granville  says  of  the  Durham  clergy 
is  applicable,  more  or  less,  to  the  clergy  generally.2  It 
was  a  bitter  and  unfortunately  too  well-grounded  an 
attack  upon  the  Established  Church  when  Pope  made 
his  Goddess  of  Dulness  say  in  the  person  of  that  Church : 

Ah  !  if  my  sons  may  learn  an  earthly  thing, 
Teach  them  that  one,  sufficient  for  a  king ; 
That  which  my  priests,  and  mine  alone,  maintain  : 
Which,  as  it  dies  or  lives,  we  fall  or  reign ; 
May  you,  my  Cam  and  Isis,  preach  it  long  ! 
The  Eight  Divine  of  kings  to  govern  wrong. 

'  Dunciad,'  Book  IV. 

1  Since  the  above  was  written,  a  most  important  and  interesting  volume, 
entitled  Supplement  to  Burnet's  History  of  My  Own  Time,  edited  by  H. 
Foxcroft   (Oxford:   Clarendon  Press,  1902),   has   appeared.     Appendix   I., 

'  Additional  Note  on  Burnet's  Change  of  View  with  regard  to  Passive  Obe-         -J 
dience,'  pp.  515-19,  gives  an  exhaustive  account  of  Burnet's  attitude. 

2  See  The  Remains  of  Denis  Granville,  Dean  of  Durham,  especially  his         y 


G  THE   NONJURORS 

It  should  be  added  that  by  the  terms  '  non-resistance  ' 

and  '  passive  obedience  '  was  not  meant,  at  least  by  the 
Nonjurors,  a  blind,  unreasoning  acquiescence  in  every- 
thing which  a  headstrong  and  cruel  tyrant  might  enjoin. 
The  epithet  '  passive '  does  not  intensify,  but  mitigates, 
the  force  of  the  word  obedience,  and  the  term  'resist- 
ance '  is  taken  in  its  literal  sense  of  opposing  by  actual — 
one  might  almost  say  physical — force.1 

But  it  certainly  required  some  ingenuity  to  reconcile 
what  was  then  generally  regarded  as  '  Church  Doctrine  ' 
with  the  acknowledgment  of  one  who  came  with  a  large 
armed  force  to  '  deliver  '  the  nation  ;  and  a  great  number 
of  those  who  managed  to  swallow  the  new  oaths  did  so 
with  more  or  less  wry  faces.  But  about  four  hundred 
beneficed  clergy,  a  few  unbeneficed,  and  a  sprinkling  of 
the  laity,  could  not  manage  it,  and  it  is  with  these  that 
we  have  now  to  do. 

It  should  be  noted  that  their  enthusiastic  loyalty  to 
their  lawful  sovereign,  as  God's  vicegerent,  was  balanced 
by  another  sentiment,  which  was  at  least  as  influential. 
They  realised  far  more  vividly  than  most  of  their  con- 
temporaries the  existence  of  the  Church  as  a  distinct 
spiritual  society  with  laws  of  its  own,  whose  connection 
with  the  State,  however  beneficial,  was  purely  accidental ; 
and,  as  a  consequence,  they  insisted  on  the  independency 
of  the  Church  of  any  power  on  earth  in  the  exercise 
of  her  purely  spiritual  power  and  authority.  This  con- 
viction pervaded  all  their  conduct,  and  still  pervades  all 
their  writings  ;  and  there  was  perhaps  no  greater  service 
rendered  by  them  than  the  witness    they  bore  to  this 

Letters  'to  the  Vice-Dean  and  Prebendaries'  and  'to  the  Clergy  of  the 
Archdeaconry  of  Durham,'  i.  ill   L6. 

1  For  an  excellent  and  lucid  explanation  of  what  was  meant,  see  A  Com- 
2>lcat  Collection  of  the  Work*  of  John  Kcttleirell,  ii.  14.i,  in  the  treatise, 
OhrisHcmity  </  Doctrmt  of  tlie  Cross. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

truth  in  an  age  which  was  sadly  in  danger  of  lapsing  into 
the  grossest  Erastianism.  It  also  prevented  them  from 
ever  allowing  their  earthly  sovereign,  sacred  being  as 
they  almost  regarded  him,  to  encroach  upon  what  was 
not  his  province.  In  other  words,  their  determination  to 
render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  were  Caesar's,  even  if 
they  had  to  sacrifice  every  earthly  advantage  to  do  so, 
was  balanced  by  a  still  stronger  determination  to  '  render 
unto  God  the  things  that  were  God's.' 1 

It  was  really  the  application  of  this  principle,  far 
more  than  their  refusal  of  the  oaths,  which  brought  the 
Nonjurors  into  direct  collision  with  the  rulers  of  Church 
and  State,  and  led  unhappily  to  the  setting  up  of  two 
communions,  each  claiming  to  be  the  true  Church  of 
England.  The  ejection  of  bishops,  simply  by  an  Act  of 
Parliament,  without  any  synodical  action,  without  any- 
thing that  bore  the  faintest  resemblance  to  an  ecclesias- 
tical judgment ;  and  the  putting  into  their  sees — that  is, 
into  sees  not  canonically  vacant — new  bishops  by  the 
civil  power,  was  about  as  glaring  a  violation  of  this  -r" 
principle  as  can  well  be  conceived  ;  and  it  is  hard  to  see 
how  those  who  held  the  principle  could  help  feeling,  not 
only  justified,  but  in  duty  bound  to  continue  to  exercise 
the  functions  which  the  Church  had  given  them,  and 
which  the  Church  had  not  taken  away  from  them. 

Hence  arose  the  schism,  which  the  Nonjurors  main- 
tained was  no  fault  of  theirs.  They  maintained  that 
they  were  in  exactly  the  same  position  in  which  they  had 
ever  been.     They  had  not  made  the  slightest  alteration  in 

1  On  this  point,  see  inter  alia,  Tlie  Case  of  the  Regale  and  the 
Pontificate,  in  Leslie's  Theological  Works,  iii.  291 ;  Elements  of  Policy, 
Civil  and  Ecclesiastical,  in  a  Mathematical  Method,  by  M.  E.  (that 
is,  Matthias  Earbery) ;  Jeremy  Collier's  Answer  to  Sherlock's  Case  of 
Allegiance,  passim;  John  Lindsay's  Grand  and  Important  Question  about 
the  Church  Parochial  Communion,  &c.  &c. ;  Hickes's  Constitution  of  the 
Catholick  Church,  p.  84  and  passim. 


8  THE   NONJURORS 

doctrine,  in  discipline,  or  in  worship.  It  was  absurd  to 
say  that  those  had  made  the  separation  who  remained 
exactly  where  they  were  before,  '  unless  '  (to  use  the  racy 
simile  of  a  Nonjuring  leader)  « you  will  affirm  that  when 
a  ship  breaks  from  the  shoar  when  she  lies  at  anchor, 
the  shoar  removes  from  her,  and  not  she  from  the  shoar.' * 
The  schism  began,  not  when  the  Nonjurors  refused  the 
oaths,  not  even  when  the  bishops  were  deprived  by  secu- 
lar authoritj' ;  but  when  new  bishops  were  appointed  to 
sees  not  vacant.  Then  altar  was  set  up  against  altar, 
and  surely  those  who  set  up  the  rival  altars  were  really 
responsible  for  the  separation.2 

It  will  be  understood  that  this  is  putting  the  matter 
from  the  Nonjurors'  point  of  view  ;  and,  so  far,  they 
were  quite  agreed  in  their  principles.  But  they  differed 
from  the  very  first  as  to  how  these  principles  were  to  be 
carried  out  in  practice ;  whether,  for  example,  they  were 
justified  in  attending  the  public  churches,  in  the  greater 
part  of  the  worship  in  which  they  could  heartily  join  ;  or 
whether  they  should  abstain  from  attendance  on  account 
of  what  were  called  '  the  immoral  prayers.'  But  these 
were  not  really  vital  points.  It  was  not  until  the  death 
of  the  last  but  one  of  the  deprived  bishops  who  claimed 
their  allegiance  that  the  first  rift  in  the  lute  was  per- 
ceived. The  sole  survivor  was  willing  to  waive  his  claim, 
heartily  desiring  that  the  schism  should  be  closed,  and 
his  now  like-minded  successor  be  accepted.  Then  a 
really  essential  difference  arose  between  those  who  had 
hitherto  been  in  substantial  agreement.  And  this 
difference  was,    alas !    only  a  prelude    to    many  further 


'  Dr.  Ilickes's  Apology  for  the  New  Separation,  in  a  Letter  to  Dr.  J.  Sharp, 
Archbishop  of  York. 

1  See  this  point  clearly  brought  out  in  Leslie's  licgulf  mid  rontijiaitc. 
Theological  Works,  iii.  334-5. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

differences,  which  divided  and  subdivided  the  little 
community  until  the  vanishing  point  was  reached. 

A  General  Introduction  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  these 
differences  in  detail ;  they  will  come  only  too  prominently 
before  us  in  later  chapters.  But  they  suggest  one  answer 
to  a  question  which  ought  to  be  fairly  met  at  the  outset. 
If,  it  may  be  asked,  the  Nonjurors  as  a  body  were,  as 
Professor  Mayor  describes  them,  men  of  solid  learning  and 
private  virtues,  who  might  challenge  comparison  with  any 
body  of  equal  numbers,  how  is  it  that  they  made  so  little 
way,  and  that,  having  struggled  on  for  about  a  century,  they 
entirely  died  out  ?  To  put  it  more  correctly,  they  were 
re-absorbed  into  the  great  body  of  English  Churchmen, 
from  whom  they  had  never  desired  to  be  separated.  But 
that  is  a  distinction  which  need  not  here  be  insisted  upon. 

But  if  there  were  no  other  answer  to  the  question, 
this  would  really  be  a  sufficient  one.  They  could  not 
agree  among  themselves ;  and  men  in  their  position  who 
cannot  present  a  united  front  have  no  more  chance  of 
success  than  a  small  army  opposed  to  a  large  army  if  it 
cannot  present  a  united  front.  Their  principles  abso- 
lutely forbade  them  to  make  an  arrangement  by  which 
one  party  might  form  a  body  of  its  own,  say,  under  the 
leadership  of  Dodwell,  and  another  under  that  of  Hickes ; 
and  then  the  latter  split  up  again,  one  section  under  the 
leadership,  say,  of  Collier,  and  another  under  that  of 
Spinckes,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum,  each  meanwhile  agree- 
ing to  differ  from  the  other  and  recognising  it  as  a 
distinct  Church.  For  they  all  held  that  there  could  be 
but  one  Church  in  England,  and  if  the}7  were  not  that 
Church  what  were  they  ? 

Another  obvious  answer  is  that  the  Nonjurors  were 
politically  embarked  in  a  hopeless  cause  ;  they  identified 
themselves  with    the    Stuarts,  and  the   Stuarts   dragged 


'/ 


10  THE   NONJURORS 

them  down  with  them  in  their  fall.  At  the  same  time 
we  must  remember  that  it  is  easy  enough  to  be  wise  after 
the  event ;  but  if  by  an  effort  of  the  historical  imagina- 
tion we  throw  ourselves  into  the  situation  as  it  appeared 
to  contemporaries,  we  shall  find  that  the  cause  by  no 
means  appeared  hopeless.  (  In  spite  of  the  just  alarm 
which  the  infatuated  policy  of  James  II.  had  raised,  and 
the  need  which  was  generally  felt  of  '  a  deliverer,'  the 
Revolution,  or  at  any  rate  the  course  taken  after  the 
Revolution,  was  not  really  popular.  If  the  Stuarts  and 
their  partisans  nad  shown  ordinary  prudence,  the  restora- 
tion of  the  old  line  might  very  probably  have  taken  place. 
William  III.'s  position  in  England  had  never  been  secure, 
and  it  became  still  less  so  after  the  death  of  Queen  Mary 
and  after  the  explosion  of  the  warming-pan  story — though 
that  story  was  still  believed  in  many  quarters,  and  pro- 
fessed to  be  believed  in  more,  long  after  reasonable  men 
must  have  been  convinced  of  its  falsehood.  The  death 
of  the  young  Duke  of  Gloucester  in  1700,  which  in  itself 
revived  the  hopes  of  the  Jacobites  by  removing  a  formid- 
able future  claimant,  led  immediately  to  the  Act  of 
Settlement,  which  gave  the  reversion  of  the  Crown  to 
the  aged  Electress  Sophia  and  her  heirs.  This  was  at 
best  accepted  as  a  necessity,  raising  no  enthusiasm  in  any 
quarter,  and  least  of  all  in  that  family  in  whose  favour  it 
was  passed ;  while  it  gave  the  Jacobites  a  handle  which 
they  were  not  slow  to  turn.  A  race  of  foreigners  was  to 
be  introduced  to  rule  England ;  the  hereditary  principle 
was  to  be  violated  in  the  most  glaring  way ;  and,  what 
was  to  many  worst  of  all,  the  throne  was  to  be  given  to 
one  who  was  no  direct  descendant  of  the  Royal  Martyr. 
Then  followed  in  1701-2  the  Abjuration  Oath,  which 
forced  many  to  declare  themselves  who  would  otherwise 
have  remained  neutral,  or  at  least  quiet. 


INTRODUCTION  U 

The  accession  of  Queen  Anne  in  1702  made  the  Non- 
jurors still  more  hopeful.  The  new  Queen's  church 
principles  would  surely  lead  her  to  sympathise  with  them  ; 
natural  affection  would  make  her  lean  towards  her 
brother;  and  she  was  known  to  dislike  extremely  the 
thought  of  being  succeeded  by  her  distant  German 
cousins.  She  seems  to  have  been  regarded  by  many  as  a 
sort  of  Eegent  for  her  brother,  who  was  still  only  a  boy 
of  thirteen — too  young  to  occupy  so  precarious  a  throne. 
At  any  rate,  it  is  clear  that,  by  some  peculiar  process  of 
reasoning,  many  who  had  regarded  the  elder  sister  as  a 
usurper  accepted  the  younger  as  a  representative  of  the 
divine,  hereditary  right.1  On  this  ground  the  '  History  of 
the  Eebellion,'  by  her  grandfather,  Lord  Clarendon,  now 
published  for  the  first  time,  was  dedicated  to  her ;  the 
ceremony  of  the  Royal  Touch  was  revived  ;  and  all 
through  her  reign,  but  especially  during  the  last  four 
years  of  it,  there  was  an  expectation  of  the  return  of  the 
Stuarts. 

Nor  did  the  peaceable  accession  of  George  I.  altogether 
destroy  this  expectation  ;  no,  nor  yet  the  suppression  of 
the  rebellion  of  1715.  At  any  rate,  if  constant  and  varied 
demonstrations  of  popular  feeling  could  be  trusted,  the 
Nonjurors  were  fully  justified  in  hoping  that  the  political 
cause  which  they  espoused  might  again  come  uppermost. 

But  these  appearances  were  fallacious  ;  from  the  col- 
lapse of  James  in  1688  to  the  collapse  of  his  grandson 
in  1745  the  legitimate  line  could  never  have  been  per- 
manently established  unless  its  representatives  had 
abandoned  their  religion,    which   they  would   never   do. 

1  See  Leslie's  Wolf  stript  of  the  Shepherd's  clothing,  which  is  dedicated 
to  '  the  Queen  and  the  Three  Estates  of  Parliament ' ;  William  Law's  Sermon 
on  the  Peace  of  Utrecht  (Life,  by  Overton,  pp.  10-12)  ;  Life  of  Fenton, 
in  Johnson's  Lives  of  the  Poets,  ii.  228,  and  innumerable  contemporary 
notices. 


12  THE  NONJURORS 

Englishmen  might  claim  their  traditional  right  of 
grumbling,  and  that  grumbling  might  sometimes  show 
itself  in  really  serious  riots ;  but  it  never  meant  that  they 
were  ready  to  accept  another  Roman  Catholic  sovereign. 
A  rooted  conviction  that  Rome  meant  arbitrary  power, 
or  a  government  framed  after  the  model  of  France,  over- 
powered all  other  feelings  ;  and  this  conviction  grew  in 
strength  as  the  years  rolled  on.  The  body  of  the  nation 
observed  with  alarm,  not  with  satisfaction,  the  unpopu- 
larity of  the  Hanoverian  dynasty.  The  dread  of  '  the 
Pretender '  became  quite  a  bugbear ;  men  feared  that  he 
might  succeed  instead  of  hoping  that  he  would  succeed ; 
and  as  his  chances  of  success  grew  fainter  and  fainter, 
the  cause  of  the  Nonjurors  grew  weaker  and  weaker, 
until  at  last  they  quietly  faded  away  altogether.  And 
yet  there  were  no  more  uncompromising  opponents 
of  Romanism  than  the  Nonjurors,  as  a  rule,  were.  It 
was  pure  ignorance  that  led  men  to  confound  their  efforts 
to  restore  primitive  doctrine  and  practice  with  a  desire  to 
restore  the  system  of  Rome. 

Before  concluding  this  general  survey  it  is  necessary 
to  face  fairly  a  question  which  is  suggested  by  the  asser- 
tions of  men  whose  names  carry  weight.  Did  the  Non- 
jurors degenerate  into  men  of  loose  morals,  injurious  to 
the  interests  of  society?  This  is  what  Dr.  Johnson 
roundly  asserts,  and  Lord  Macaulay,  more  suo,  amplifies 
in  vivid  detail.  The  passage  in  Boswell's  '  Life  of  Johnson  ' 
is  as  follows  : — 

He  told  us  the  play  was  to  be  '  The  Hypocrite,'  altered  from 
Cibber's  '  Nonjuror,'  so  as  to  satirise  the  Methodists.  '  I  do  not 
think,'  said  he,  '  the  character  of  the  Hypocrite  justly  applicable 
to  the  Methodists,  but  it  was  very  applicable  to  the  Nonjurors. 
1  once  said  to  Dr.  Madan,  a  clergyman  of  Ireland,  who  was  a 
great  Whig,  that  perhaps  a  Nonjuror  would  have  been  less 
criminal  in  taking  the  oaths  imposed  by  the  ruling  power  than 


INTKODUCTION  IS 

refusing  them ;  because  refusing  them  necessarily  laid  him 
under  an  almost  irresistible  temptation  to  be  more  criminal ; 
for  a  man  must  live,  and,  if  he  precludes  himself  from  the 
support  furnished  by  the  Establishment,  will  probably  be  reduced 
to  very  wicked  shifts  to  maintain  himself. 

Then  follows  an  illustration  which  one  cannot  quote 
in  these  more  delicate  days.1  Johnson  repeats  the  accusa- 
tion in  his  Life  of  Fenton,  the  nonjuring  poet.2 

The  passage  in  Macaulay  runs  thus  : 

To  a  person  whose  virtue  is  not  high-toned  this  way  of  life 
[that  of  a  Nonjuror  in  the  house  of  a  patron]  is  full  of  peril. 
If  he  is  of  a  quiet  disposition,  he  is  in  danger  of  sinking  into  a 
servile,  sensual,  drowsy  parasite.  If  he  is  of  an  active  and 
aspiring  nature,  it  may  be  feared  that  he  will  become  expert  in 
those  bad  arts  by  which,  more  easily  than  by  faithful  service, 
retainers  make  themselves  agreeable  or  formidable.  To  discover 
the  weak  side  of  every  character,  to  flatter  every  passion  and 
prejudice,  to  sow  discord  and  jealousy  where  love  and  con- 
fidence ought  to  exist,  to  watch  the  moment  of  indiscreet  open- 
ness for  the  purpose  of  extracting  secrets  important  to  the 
prosperity  and  honour  of  families,  such  are  the  practices  by 
which  keen  and  restless  spirits  have  too  often  avenged  them- 
selves for  the  humiliation  of  dependence.  The  public  voice 
loudly  accused  many  Nonjurors  of  requiting  the  hospitality  of 
their  benefactors  with  villainy  as  black  as  that  of  the  hypocrite 
depicted  in  the  masterpiece  of  Moli^re.  Indeed,  when  Cibber 
undertook  to  adapt  that  noble  comedy  to  the  English  stage,  he 
made  his  Tartuffe  a  Nonjuror;  and  Johnson,  who  cannot  be 
supposed  to  have  been  prejudiced  against  the  Nonjurors,  frankly 
owned  that  Cibber  had  done  them  no  wrong.3 

He  then  refers  in  a  note  to  the  passage  in  '  The  Life 
of  Fenton,'  to  a  pamphlet  called  '  The  Character  of  a 
Jacobite,'  1690,  and  to  a  passage  in  Kettlewell's  Life 
prefixed  to  his  '  Compleat  Works.' 

1  See  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson,  chap,  x,  under  the  year  1775.     In  the 
Illustrated  Edition  in  4  vols.,  ii.  208-9. 

2  See  Johnson's  Lives  of  the  Poets,  ii.  227. 

3  History  of  England,  chap.  xiv. ;  in  the  edition  in  2  vols,  of  1873, 
ii.  110. 


14  THE  NONJURORS 

The  evidence  is  rather  scanty.  Dr.  Johnson  gives 
practically  none  at  all,  but  merely  his  own  ipse  dixit ;  and 
he  must  have  had  his  information  from  hearsay,  for  at 
the  time  when  he  entered  public  life  the  Nonjurors  had 
dwindled  into  a  very  small  party,  and  he  was  not,  so  far 
as  I  am  aware,  brought  into  personal  contact  with  any  of 
them  '  or  any  of  their  patrons.  Lord  Macaulay's  reference 
to  '  The  Character  of  a  Jacobite  '  is  hardly  to  the  point, 
for  more  reasons  than  one.  (1)  The  pamphlet  is  a  very 
prejudiced,  ex  parte  statement,  which  must  be  received 
with  the  utmost  caution.  (2)  The  date  of  it  is  1690, 
when  it  was  too  early  to  predicate  anything  of  the  Non- 
jurors as  a  body,  for  they  were  not  yet  a  settled  com- 
munity. (3)  A  '  Jacobite  '  and  a  '  Nonjuror '  were  not 
convertible  terms  ;  there  were  Jacobites,  and  most  active 
and  aggressive  Jacobites  too,  who  were  not  Nonjurors ; 
and  there  were  Nonjurors  who  were  in  no  active  sense  of 
the  term  Jacobites,  men  who  were  content  to  live  peace- 
ably and  quietly  without  a  thought  of  disturbing  the 
existing  government. 

The  evidence  of  Kettlewell  is  far  the  most  important. 
It  is  as  follows  : 

The  clergy  here  who  have  no  business,  but  stay  in  town  as 
the  best  place  of  gifts,  may  be  sent  into  the  counties,  where 
they  will  be  much  better  maintained  at  half  the  charge,  and 
where  they  may  do  service.  And  others  will  have  no  excuse  to 
spend  most  of  their  time  in  coffee-houses  and  hunting  after 
gifts  ;  but  when  they  are  not  employed  in  their  holy  functions 
may  follow  their  studies  to  improve  themselves. 

Thus  far  Mr.  Kettlewell  himself,  in  his  '  Model  of  a 
Fund  of  Charity  for  Needy  and  Suffering  Clergy,'  -  which 

1  Unless  we  except  Bishop  Archibald  Campbell,  who  was  after  all  a 
Scotch,  not  an  English  Nonjuror,  though  he  was  more  in  England  than  in 
Scotland. 

1  Cumplcat  Work*  of  John  I&ttUwell,  with  Life,  i.  ippendii  XIX. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

was  put  forth  in  January  1694-5.  His  contemporary 
biographer,  who  may  be  regarded  as  equally  trustworthy 
with  himself,  writes  that,  before  the  fund  was  started, 

Not  a  few  were  imposed  upon  in  their  charity,  and  several 
undeserving  persons  (who  are  always  the  most  confident),  br 
their  going  up  and  down  did  much  prejudice  to  the  truly 
deserving,  whose  modesty  would  not  suffer  them  to  solicit  for 
themselves.  Yea,  there  were  also  some  false  pretenders,  persons 
of  bad  characters,  and  such  as  were  not  deprived  on  account  of 
the  oaths,  but  for  other  reasons,  and  whose  only  merit  consisted 
in  being  secret  spies  and  informers  for  the  ministry ;  one  of 
whom  I  knew  who  had  forged  Letters  of  Orders  to  qualify  him- 
self ;  those  by  appearing  more  zealous  tban  others  made  it  their 
business  to  insinuate  themselves,  and  do  all  the  mischief  in 
their  power  to  those  whom  they  pretended  to  side  with.  [This 
Kettlewell  saw.]  He  was  also  very  sensible  that  some  of  his 
brethren  spent  too  much  of  their  time  in  places  of  concourse 
and  news,  by  depending  for  their  subsistence  upon  those  whom 
they  there  got  acquainted  with  i — and  so  forth. 

This  evidence  may  be  taken  as  absolutely  unimpeach- 
able ;  but  what  does  it  amount  to  ?  That  there  were 
unworthy  members  of  the  party,  and  impostors  who  traded 
on  the  sympathy  shown  towards  the  pious  and  blameless 
sufferers  for  conscience'  sake.  Human  nature  must  have 
been  strangely  different  from  what  it  is  now  if  there  had 
not  been.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  in 
the  early  years  of  the  separation  ;  and  it  is  probable  that 
the  black  sheep  were  soon  expelled  from  the  flock,  and  no 
others  admitted  into  it;  for,  as  will  appear  presently, 
nothing  was  more  common  than  for  a  deprived  Nonjuror 
to  find  refuge  in  the  house  of  a  sympathising  patron  ;  and 
I  have  not  found  one  single  instance  of  the  patron's  con- 
fidence being  abused,  but  many  instances  of  his  kindness 
being  repaid  by  services  rendered.  Dr.  Johnson's  is  a 
great  name,  but  it  is  only  the  name  of  one  man  after  all. 

1  Compleat  Works  of  John  Kettlewell,  with  Life,  i.  163. 


16  THE   NONJUEOES 

And  when  one  finds  scanty  and  vague  statements  on  one 
side,  and  a  perfect  avalanche  of  testimony  on  the  other, 
one  naturally  feels  that  the  latter  outweighs  the  former. 
Part  of  this  testimony  will  be  found  in  the  following 
chapters  which  deal  with  individual  Nonjurors  ;  and  those 
who  have  the  patience  to  wade  through  these  chapters 
may  he  appealed  to  in  the  language  in  which  Jehu  appealed 
to  '  the  servants  of  his  lord,'  '  Ye  know  the  men  and  their 
communication.'  Of  outside  testimonies  there  are  most 
varied  kinds :  some  from  their  friends,  of  course  ;  some 
from  men  who  totally  disagreed  with  them  ;  some  from 
contemporaries  ;  some  from  men  in  later  times  who  have 
really  studied  their  history.  To  take  a  few  out  of  very 
many.  Bishop  Burnet  was,  perhaps,  of  all  their  contem- 
poraries, the  man  who  was  most  alien  from  their  spirit. 
He  was  regarded  by  them  as  their  arch-enemy,  and  he 
certainly  stood  quite  at  the  opposite  pole  both  in  politics 
and  theology.  And  yet  he  could  write  to  one  of  them 
when  the  relations  were  most  strained  (January  29, 
1714-1  .->)  : 

I  never  think  the  worse  of  men  for  their  different  sentiments 
in  such  matters ;  I  am  sure  I  am  bound  to  think  much  the 
better  of  them  for  adhering  firmly  to  the  dictates  of  their  con- 
science, when  it  is  so  much  to  their  loss,  and  when  so  sacred  a 
thing  as  an  oath  is  in  the  case.  But  I  have  so  great  a  regard 
both  to  yourself  and  your  friends,  that  as  I  am  extremely  sorry 
that  the  Church  hath  so  long  lost  the  service  of  so  worthy  men, 
so  am  I  very  glad  to  have  it  in  my  power,  from  what  you  write 
to  me,  to  vindicate  you  and  them  in  that  particular.1 

Another  contemporary,  Archbishop  Sharp,  'had  a 
very  great  tenderness  and   pity  for  all   those  who  could 

1  Letter  from  Bishop  Burnet  to  Thomas  Baker  just  before  the  ejeotment 
of  the  latter  from  his  Fellowship  at  Cambridge,  quoted  In  Memoirs  of  the 
Life  and  Writings  of  'J'.  Baker,  of  St.  Joint's  College,  Cambridge,  from  the 
papers  of  Dr.  Z.  Qrey,  by  Robert  .Masters,  pp.  ;rj  :r.s. 


INTRODUCTION  17 

not  satisfy  their  consciences  on  this  point.'  '  As  for 
those,  whether  clergy  or  laity,  who  were  dissatisfied  upon 
pure  principles  of  conscience,  and  behaved  themselves 
modestly  and  peaceably,  keeping  their  sentiments  to 
themselves  and  giving  no  disturbance  to  the  public,  he 
had  as  hearty  a  tenderness  and  compassion  for  all  such  as 
was  possible.'1  Thomas  Sherlock,  the  able  son  of  an 
able  father,  might  be  supposed  to  inherit  a  prejudice 
against  the  Nonjurors,  for  no  man  had  been  so  vituperated 
by  them  as  William  Sherlock,  the  father,  whom  they 
regarded  as  a  renegade  to  their  cause.  But  Thomas 
Sherlock  was  a  singularly  clear-headed  and  fair-minded 
man,  and  he  recognised  their  merits.  In  1716  (a  critical 
time)  he  was  not  afraid  to  say  a  word  in  favour  of  the 
Nonjurors  in  a  sermon  preached  on  the  Thanksgiving- 
Day  for  the  suppression  of  the  Kebellion  : 

The  principles  on  which  the  legality  of  the  present  Esta- 
blishment is  maintained  are,  I  think,  but  improperly  made  a 
part  of  the  present  quarrel  which  divides  the  nation.  There 
are  but  few  who  have  not  precluded  themselves  on  this 
point,  those,  I  mean,  who  have  had  courage  and  plainness 
enough  to  own  their  sense  and  forego  the  advantages  either 
of  birth  or  education,  rather  than  give  a  false  security  to 
the  Government  which  under  their  present  persuasion  they 
could  not  make  good.  To  these  I  have  nothing  more  to  say 
than  to  wish  them,  what  I  think  they  well  deserve,  a  better 
cause.2 

Hilkiah  Bedford,  a  leading  Nonjuror  and  afterwards 
bishop,  could  boldly  claim  for  his  party  what  he  could 
not  without  manifest  absurdity  have  claimed  if  they  had 
been  what  Dr.  Johnson  said  they  were.  '  At  worst,'  he 
writes,  '  they  are  but  unhappy  mistaken  men,  who  other- 

1  Life  of  John  Sharp,  Archbisliop  of  York,  by  his  Son,  Thomas  Sharp. 
Archdeacon  of  Northumberland;  edited  by  Thomas  Newcome,  pp.  264-5. 

2  Quoted  by  Dr.  Doran  in  London  in  the  Jacobite  Times,  i.  239. 

C 


18  THE   NONJURORS 

wise  are  as  eminent  for  good  sense,  piety,  and  learning 
as  any  other  denomination  of  men  among  all  the  con- 
tending parties  in  these  divided  times.' ' 

Among  the  many  testimonies  from  those  who  might 
naturally  be  expected  to  be  favourable  to  the  Nonjurors 
I  select  one  written  in  1825,  because  it  has  a  certain 
historical  value  as  showing  that  the  principles  for  which 
these  men  contended  were  not  altogether  in  abeyance  in 
the  English  Church  until  they  were  revived  by  the 
Oxford  Movement.  The  writer  is  John  Bowdler,  who 
was  of  a  Nonjuring  stock ;  but  he  speaks,  it  will  be 
observed,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  others  who  lived 
in  his  day. 

The  names  of  the  principal  Nonjurors  were  too  eminent  to 
be  easily  lost,  and  the  opinions  which  they  asserted  are  so  inter- 
woven with  the  principles  of  our  Church  that  they  deserve  not 
only  to  be  remembered,  but  to  be  carefully  studied.  .  .  .  They 
were  men  of  unquestionable  learning  and  unimpeachable  in- 
tegrity, of  exalted  piety  and  sound  loyalty,  and  distinguished  for 
all  the  charities  of  life ;  discriminating  carefully  between  that 
authority  which,  under  the  form  of  an  established  church,  the 
government  of  a  country  can  bestow,  and  that  which  they  had 
received  according  to  the  appointments  of  God.  .  .  .  Whatever 
may  be  thought  of  their  conduct  in  particular  instances,  their 
principles  will  be  had  in  honour  by  all  sound  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  ;  and  at  this  time,  wThen  the  controversies 
which  then  took  place  are  regarded  with  considerable  interest, 
their  names  and  opinions  have,  perhaps,  acquired  increased 
respect.2 

Another  testimony  has  a  special  value  of  its  own, 
because  it  comes  from  one  who  had  made  a  special  study 

1  A  Seasonable  and  Modest  Apology  in  behalf  of  the  Ben,  Dr.  (',.  I 
and  otlicr  Nonjurors,  in  a  Letter  to  T.  Wise,  D.D.,  on  tlie  occasion  of  his 
Visitation  at  Canterbury,  1710.     Anonymous,  but  known   to   h:i\ 
Written  by  H.  Bedford. 

'-'  M,  mow  of  John  Dowdier,  with  some  account  of  Thomas  Dowdier  [by 
John  Bowdler,  the  younger,  18251.  oP.  82-3 


INTRODUCTION  19 

of  the  life  and  writings  of  a  man  who  was  in  some 
respects  the  most  eminent  of  all  the  Nonjurors,  Jeremy 
Collier,  a  study  which  he  could  not  have  made  without 
learning  thoroughly  what  the  mind  and  life  of  the  Non- 
jurors were ;  for  Collier  did  not,  like  Law  for  instance, 
stand  aloof,  but  threw  himself  thoroughly  into  all  the 
doings  of  his  co-religionists.  '  The  just  reputation,' 
wrote  Mr.  Barham  in  1840,  '  of  the  Nonjurors,  too  long 
overcast  by  their  enemies,  is  now  recovering  its  true 
sphere  of  elevation.' l 

A  word  may  be  added  about  the  incident  which  led 
to  Dr.  Johnson's  famous  charge,  which  has  so  much 
damaged  the  reputation  of  the  Nonjurors.  After  the 
Eebellion  of  1715,  Colley  Cibber,  who  had  achieved  a 
reputation  both  as  a  playwright  and  as  an  actor,  improved 
the  occasion  by  bringing  out  (November  1717)  a  play 
called  '  The  Nonjuror,'  the  history  of  which  had  better 
be  given  in  his  own  words  : 

At  this  time  Jacobitism  had  lately  exerted  itself  by  the  most 
unprovoked  Eebellion  that  our  histories  have  handed  down  to 
us  since  the  Norman  Conquest ;  I  therefore  thought  that  to  set 
the  Authors  and  Principles  of  that  desperate  Folly  in  a  fair 
Light  by  allowing  the  mistaken  consciences  of  some  their  best 
excuse,  and  by  making  the  artful  Pretenders  of  Conscience  as 
ridiculous  as  they  were  ungratefully  wicked,  was  a  subject  fit 
for  the  honest  Satire  of  Comedy,  and  what  might,  if  it  succeeded, 
do  Honour  to  the  Stage,  by  showing  the  valuable  use  of  it. 
And  considering  what  numbers,  at  that  time,  might  come  to  it, 
as  prejudiced  Spectators,  it  may  be  allowed  that  the  Speculation 
was  not  less  hazardous  than  laudable.  To  give  Life,  therefore, 
to  this  design,  I  borrowed  the  Tartuffe  of  Molierc  and  turned 
him  into  a  modern  Nonjuror  :  Upon  the  Hypocrisy  of  the 
French  character  I  ingrafted  a  stronger  Wickedness,  that  of  an 
English  Popish  Priest,  lurking  under  the  doctrine  of  our  Church, 

1  '  Life  of  Jeremy  Collier,'  prefixed  to  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  in 
D  vols.,  by  Francis  Barham,  p.  xcix. 

c  2 


20  THE    NONJURORS 

:o  raise  his  Fortune  upon  the  Ruin  of  a  worthy  gentleman,  whom 
his  dissembled  Sanctity  had  seduced  into  the  treasonable  cause 
of  a  Roman  Catholic.1 

1  Laudable '  as  the  design  may  have  been,  the  personal 
insinuations,  for  which  there  was  not  the  shadow  of  a 
foundation,  were  hardly  laudable.  The  hero  was  a  Dr. 
Wolf,  a  Nonjuror  who  had  been  admitted  into  the  family 
of  a  Sir  John  Woodvile,  an  elderly  baronet,  who  had 
married,  as  his  second  wife,  a  lady  much  younger  than 
himself.  This  wife  the  Nonjuror  attempted  to  seduce, 
under  the  pretence  of  making  love  to  her  step-daughter. 
The  following  passage  occurs  in  it : 

Sir  John.  Well,  sir,  what  say  our  last  advices  from 
Avignon  ? 

Dr.  Wolf.  All  goes  right.  The  Council  has  approv'd  our 
scheme  and  press  mightily  despatch  among  our  friends  in 
England. 

Sir  John.  But,  pray,  Doctor  ! 

Doctor.  Hold,  sir  ;  now  we  are  alone,  give  me  leave  to 
inform  you  better.  Not  that  I  am  vain  of  any  worldly  title, 
but  since  it  has  pleased  our  Court  to  dignify  me,  our  Church's 
right  obliges  me  to  take  it. 

Sir  John.  Pray,  sir,  explain. 

Doctor.  Our  last  express  has  brought  me  this,  which  (far 
unworthy  as  I  am)  promotes  me  to  the  vacant  see  of  Thetford. 

Sir  John.  Is  it  possible  !  My  Lord,  I  joy  in  your  advance- 
ment. 

Now  the  see  of  Thetford  had  lately  '  become  vacant ' 
(though  that  is  an  absurdly  inaccurate  way  of  putting  it) 
by  the  death  of  Dr.  Hickes ;  and  Hickes'  successor,  who 
may  be  regarded  as  either  Henry  Gandy  or  Thomas 
Brett— they  were  both  consecrated  on  the  same  day — 
had  been  appointed  a  few  months  before.     There  is  not 

1  An  Apology  for  the  Life  of  Mr.  Colby  Cibbcr,  Oomtdicm  and  r. 
of  tlie  Theatre  Royal.    With  an  historical  Vim  of  tit,-  Stage  in  hie  own 
Time.     Written  l>y  Himself.     Second  Edition,  1740,  p.  1-7. 


INTRODUCTION  21 

the  faintest  shadow  of  a  suspicion  that  any  of  the  three 
— -whose  lives  will  be  noticed  in  a  future  chapter — in  any 
way  corresponded  with  Dr.  Wolf,  who  was  a  hypocrite, 
a  Jesuit  in  disguise,  a  betrayer  of  female  virtue  and  of 
his  generous  benefactor — in  short,  a  most  dangerous  man 
to  admit  into  any  decent  household.  All  the  Nonjuring 
bishops,  whose  lives  will  be  more  or  less  fully  described 
in  these  pages,  were  men  of  totally  different  characters 
from  Dr.  Wolf.  Is  it  possible,  with  this  knowledge 
before  us,  to  trust  the  accuracy  of  the  play  generally  ? 

I  do  not  think  Colley  Cibber  consciously  misrepresented 
the  Nonjurors.  He  probably  knew  very  little  about 
them ;  for  he  intimates  that  Dr.  Wolf's  predecessor  in 
the  see  of  Thetford  was  Lawrence  Howell,  who  never 
was  a  bishop  at  all  !  But  there  were  reasons  why  he 
would  naturally  be  inclined  to  view  them  with  an  un- 
favourable eye,  and  to  lend  a  ready  ear  to  any  idle  gossip 
against  them.  He  was  a  German  by  extraction,  and 
therefore  his  hereditary  sympathies  would  be  with  the 
Hanoverians ;  he  was  a  Whig  by  principle,  and  therefore 
his  personal  sympathies  would  not  be  with  those  who 
represented  Toryism  in  its  extremest  form ;  he  had 
already  received  favours  from  the  existing  Government 
and  expected,  and  received,  more.  But  there  was  a 
matter  which  came  more  closely  home  to  him  than  this. 
One  of  the  ablest  of  the  Nonjurors,  Jeremy  Collier,  had 
attacked  him  on  a  very  tender  point.  There  is  no  more 
sensitive  being  than  a  new  writer  about  his  first  work ; 
and  Collier,  in  his  crusade  against  the  immorality  of  the 
stage,  had  singled  out  Cibber' s  first  play  for  a  rather 
captious  animadversion.  Cibber  generously  owned  that 
Collier  produced  a  good  result  by  his  crusade,  but  it  is 
evident  that  he  felt  sore,  and  not  unnaturally,  about  the 
attack  upon  himself.     Far  too  much  importance  has  been 


•1-1  THE  NONJURORS 

assigned  to  this  play,  which  was  not  even  one  of  Gibber's 
best.  Dean  Pluniptre  thinks  '  Cibber's  transformation  of 
Moliere's  "  Tartuffe "  into  the  "Dr.  Wolf"  of  his  once 
popular  comedy,  "  The  Nonjuror,"  though  doubtless  a 
libel  and  a  caricature  on  the  class,  could  scarcely  have 
won  the  applause  of  crowded  theatres  if  it  had  not  been 
felt  that  it  bore,  in  some  cases,  only  too  close  a  resem- 
blance to  the  original.'  '  But  those  who  have  closely 
studied  the  mind  of  the  period,  and  have  therefore  realised 
the  frantic  alarm  and  dislike  which  '  the  Pretender '  and 
all  who  were  in  any  way  connected  with  his  cause  aroused, 
will  own  that  crowds  would  be  quite  ready  to  applaud 
anything  derogatory  to  them  without  stopping  to  inquire 
whether  it  was  true  or  not. 

Enough,  it  is  hoped,  has  now  been  said  in  this  general 
survey  of  the  subject  to  enable  the  reader  to  enter  into 
the  details  which  will  be  given  in  the  following  chapters. 

1  Plumptre's  Life  of  Bishop  Ken,  ii.  75. 


23 


CHAPTEE   II 

THE    DEPBIVED    FATHEKS 

Those  who  were  fondly  called  '  the  deprived  Fathers/ 
that  is,  those  prelates  who  declined  to  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  William  and  Mary  in  1689,  stand  on  quite  a 
different  footing  from  the  rest  of  the  Nonjurors.  It  was 
not  that  they  were  more  able  and  learned  than  the  rest ; 
on  the  contrary,  others  will  come  before  us  who  stood 
far  above  any  of  them  in  point  of  literary  achievements. 
Nor  was  it  that  they  suffered  more ;  others  gave  up  their 
all  for  conscience'  sake,  and  they  could  not  do  more.  But 
they  were  the  '  fathers '  of  the  family,  and  that  in  more 
senses  than  one;  they  were,  in  the  first  instance,  the 
only  members  of  it  who  belonged  to  the  highest  order  of 
the  ministry ;  and  therefore  it  depended  upon  them  j 
alone  to  keep  up  the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  and  to 
supply  the  gaps  which  in  the  course  of  nature  would 
occur  in  the  thin  ranks  of  the  clergy.  It  was  to  them  that 
the  others  looked  up  for  guidance  and  counsel  ;  they  set 
the  example,  and  the  rest  followed.  Moreover,  five  out 
of  the  eight  had  been  among  the  immortal  seven  who 
had  gone  to  prison  rather  than  execute  the  illegal  orders  > 
of  King  James,  the  aim  of  which,  according  to  general 
belief,  was  '  to  bring  in  Popery  and  Arbitrary  Power  ' ;  and 
as  the  Nonjurors  were  freely  charged  with  desiring  to 
bring  in  both  it  was  a  comfort  and  satisfaction  to  them 
to  be  able  to  point  to  the  conduct  of  their  '  fathers  '  on 
that  memorable  occasion  in  disproof  of  the  charge.     The 


THE  NONJURORS 

immense  popularity  which  the  bishops  had  then  deservedly 
gained  was  now  a  help  to  the  Nonjuring  cause.  It  was 
no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  deprived  Fathers  were 
regarded  with  a  reverence  and  possessed  an  authority 
which  from  the  nature  of  the  case  could  belong  to  none 
besides ;  and  for  these  reasons,  and  also  because  things 
will  have  to  be  said  about  them  which  apply  to  no 
others,  they  require  a  separate  treatment. 

The  names  of  these  prelates  were  William  Sancroft, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  ;  Francis  Turner,  Bishop  of 
Ely ;  John  Lake,  Bishop  of  Chichester ;  William  Thomas, 
Bishop  of  Worcester ;  Thomas  White,  Bishop  of  Peter- 
borough;  Thomas  Ken,  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells; 
William  Lloyd,  Bishop  of  Norwich  ;  Eobert  Frampton, 
Bishop  of  Gloucester ;  and  (with  a  serious  qualification) 
Thomas  Cartwright,  Bishop  of  Chester.  Of  these,  San- 
croft, Turner,  Lake,  White,  and  Ken  had  been  among 
those  who  were  imprisoned  in  the  Tower  in  June  1688. 
Lloyd  would  also  have  been  among  the  number  had  not 
the  letter  inviting  him  to  London  to  take  part  in  pre- 
senting the  petition  to  King  James  miscarried  by  accident, 
or  been  intercepted ;  so  also  would  Frampton,  who  was 
actually  hurrying  on  his  way  to  join  in  the  presentation, 
but  did  not  arrive  in  time; l  and  these  two  were  always 
recognised  by  the  rest  as  having  been,  if  not  actually,  yet 
'in  full  preparation  of  mind,'  as  themselves.2  Cartwright 
stands  in  quite  a  different  category  from  the  rest.  He 
died,  indeed,  in  1G89 ;  but  if  he  had  lived  to  be  deprived, 
it  would  have  been  because  he  could  not  have  avoided  it ; 
he  had  been  so  complete  a  tool  of  King  James  that  he. 
could  never  have  been  accepted  by  the  Ke volution  Govern- 
ment, and  his  character  and  antecedents  were  such  that 

1  Bee  Life  of  Brampton,  pp.  151-3. 

-  See  Plamptre'a  Life  of  Bishop  Ken,  ii.  88. 


THE   DEPEIVED  FATHEES  25 

he  would  never  have  been  accepted  by  the  Nonjurors, 
who  regarded  the  whole  question  at  least  as  much  from 
a  religious  as  from  a  political  point  of  view.  William 
Thomas  also  and  John  Lake  died  before  the  sentence  of 
deprivation  was  carried  out,  the  former  in  June,  the  latter 
in  August  1689 ;  but  these  were  men  of  a  very  different 
type  from  Cartwright,  and  were  gladly  recognised  by  the 
Nonjurors  as  confessors  for  their  cause,  to  which  they 
were  an  honour  when  living,  and  which  they  strengthened 
by  the  testimony  they  bore  to  it  when  they  were  dying. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  there  were  only  five  who 
were  actually  deprived ;  but  Thomas  and  Lake  were 
always  included  in  their  numbers,  and  what  will  be  said 
of  the  other  five  will  also  apply  to  them.  It  was  observed 
as  a  good  omen  that  they  were  still  the  sacred  number 
seven,  '  the  Bishop  of  Norwich,  a  man  well-skilled  in  our 
laws,  and  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  making  up  the 
number  in  the  room  of  the  bishops  that  fell  from  their 
principle,  being  able  to  suffer  imprisonment  only,  but  not 
the  loss  of  all  things.' '  The  two  defaulters  were  William 
Lloyd,  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  and  Sir  Jonathan  Trelawney, 
Bishop  of  Bristol ;  and,  with  these  two  exceptions,  the 
bishops  who  effectually  resisted  King  James  in  the  time 
of  his  power  were  the  very  same  men  who  stood  by  him 
in  his  adversity,  suffering,  for  the  first,  imprisonment, 
and  for  the  second  the  loss  of  all  their  worldly  goods  and 
prospects.  And,  so  far  from  there  being  any  incon- 
sistency between  their  conduct  on  the  one  occasion  and 
on  the  other,  it  was  exactly  the  same  principle  which 
actuated  them  on  both,  and  exactly  the  same  moral 
courage  and  supreme  reverence  for  conscience  on  both 
which  enabled  them  to  carry  that  principle  into  action. 

The  curious  result,  however,  was  that  the  men  who 

1  Life  of  Bishop  Frampton,  pp.  184-5. 


26  THE   NONJURORS 

were  in  a  very  real  sense  largely  instrumental  in  bringing 
about  the  Revolution  were  the  first  to  suffer  from  it.1 
The  trial  of  the  seven  bishops  was  the  proximate  cause 
of  the  invitation  to  William  of  Orange  to  '  come  over  and 
deliver  the  English  nation  from  Popery  and  Arbitrary 
Power  ;  '  the  subsequent  refusal  of  the  bishops  to  comply 
with  King  James's  command  to  them  to  draw  up  a  paper 
expressing  their  abhorrence  of  the  Prince's  invasion 
prevented  a  serious  hindrance  to  the  success  of  the 
Prince's  design  ; 2  for  the  bishops  were  then  so  popular 
that  a  declaration  on  their  part  would  have  weighed 
enormously  with  the  general  public.  But  such  a  declara- 
tion they  could  not  conscientiously  make,  for  they  felt 
as  much  as  any  the  need  of  intervention.  Thus  they 
rendered  very  material  assistance  to  the  Revolution ;  and 
the  reward  which  they  received  for  their  services  was  the 
despoiling  of  their  goods  and  the  absolute  ruin  of  all  their 
worldly  prospects. 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  Eevolution  Government 
could  not  help  itself,  for  no  government  can  subsist 
which  does  not  enforce  its  own  laws.  But  was  it  wise, 
was  it  necessary,  to  make  a  new  law  requiring  the  clergy 
who  held  any  office  to  take  the  oaths  afresh  ?  It  had 
never  been  required  before  on  the  accession  of  a  new 
sovereign ;  and  if  it  be  said  that  the  doubtfulness  of  the 
new  sovereign's  tenure  rendered  what  was  unnecessary 
before  necessary  now,  the  argument  on  the  other  side  is 
surely  far  more  weighty.     Was  it  a  time  to  drive  vi  r\ 


1  Bishop  Vowler  Short  brings  this  point  out  very  well.  Sec  his  History 
of  the  Church  of  England,  §808. 

*  There  is  a  most  Inters  ting  papa  among  the  Rawlinson  MSS.  (H  886) 
written,  no  doubt,  by  Bishop  Turner,  In  which  he  defends  at  Length  the 
'  non-swfuiiii;    Prelates"  conduct  in  the  matter  oi  'the  Abhorrence'     The 

f  Henry,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  lt;s7-90  (pp.  495-.r)o,2).  also  ■!.< 
vivid  and  Interesting  details. 


THE  DEPEIVED  EATHEES  27 

valuable  and  influential  men  into  a  corner  ?  Was  it  not 
emphatically  a  time  to  be  conciliatory,  to  put  no  needless 
strain  upon  men  whose  past  conduct  showed,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  they  would  never  do  anything  to  bring  in 
popery  and  arbitrary  power,  and,  on  the  other,  that  their 
consciences  would  be  extremely  sensitive  as  to  the 
sanctity  of  an  oath  ? 

It  is,  however,  as  ecclesiastics,  not  as  politicians,  that 
the  deprived  Fathers  appeal  to  our  sympathies.  Many 
will  think — though  the  thought  would  be  quite  foreign  to  / 
the  feeling  of  the  seventeenth  century — that  the  less  they 
interfered  with  politics  the  better.  For,  truth  to  tell,  their 
political  wisdom  does  not  appear  to  have  been  remarkable. 
They  were  all  for  a  Eegency.  But  was  it  reasonable  to  V 
suppose  that  a  keen  and  ambitious  statesman  and  soldier, 
like  William  of  Orange,  would  come  over  with  an  armed 
force  to  '  deliver  '  a  country  which  he  never  loved,  and 
then  go  back  again  ?  Or,  that  he  would  ever  be  content 
with  the  strange  position  of  having  a  roi  faineant  in  the 
background — in  other  words,  with  doing  all  the  work  and 
incurring  all  the  responsibility,  while  another  held  the 
honour  ? 

But  when  we  pass  from  what  was  called  in  the 
language  of  the  time  '  the  State  point '  to  '  the  Church 
point,'  the  case  is  quite  different.  The  bishops  were  here'/ 
on  their  proper  ground,  and  it  was  hard  to  dislodge  them 
from  it  by  argument.  This  seems  to  have  been  clearly 
perceived  by  the  new  Government,  which  showed  con- 
siderable forbearance,  and  made  various  attempts  to 
conciliate  the  recalcitrants.  The  sees  were  kept  vacant 
for  some  time  in  order  that  the  late  Nonjuring  holders 
might  be  won  over.  At  length  a  conspiracy  against  the 
Government  was  detected,  or,  as  some  think,  fabricated, 
in  which  the  Nonjuring  bishops  were  suspected  of  being 


28  THE  NONJURORS 

concerned,  and  this,  as  William's  chief  ecclesiastical 
adviser  naively  puts  it,  '  gave  the  King  a  great  advantage 
in  filling  up  these,  vacant  sees.' l  But  he  met  with  some 
rebuffs.  Dr.  Sharp,  then  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  previously 
Dean  of  Norwich,  a  man  very  generally  respected, 

had  the  choice  of  two  or  three  bishoprics  offered  to  him : 
Norwich,  which  was  thought  would  be  most  acceptable  to  him 
on  account  of  the  friendships  he  had  in  that  city,  was  pressed 
upon  him  by  Tillotson.  But  he  waived  all  these  offers  on 
account  of  the  dispossessed  bishops  being  yet  alive  ;  in  regard 
to  Norwich,  he  declared  that,  having  lived  in  great  friendship 
with  its  Bishop,  he  could  not  think  of  taking  his  place. 

Indeed,  he  asserted  roundly  that  it  was  '  quite  impossible 
for  him  to  build  his  rise  upon  the  ruins  of  any  one  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  who,  for  piety,  good  morals, 
and  strictness  of  life,  had  left  no  equal.'  And  we  are  not 
surprised  to  learn  that  '  the  King  was  not  a  little  dis- 
gusted at  his  peremptory  refusal  of  these  preferments.' 2 
Dr.  South  acted  in  the  same  way  as  Dr.  Sharp,  and  is 
said  to  have  used  exactly  the  same  words.3  William 
Beveridge,  perhaps  the  most  highly  esteemed  and 
energetic  clergyman  then  living,  followed  his  example, 
and  refused  to  take  Bishop  Ken's  place  at  Bath  and 
Wells.  John  Scott,  one  of  the  best  devotional  writers  of 
the  day,  refused  the  bishopric  of  Chester  and  other  posts. 
Tillotson  himself  was  most  reluctant  to  go  to  Canter- 
bury. And  can  we  wonder  at  it  ?  The  men  whose  posts 
they  were  to  occupy  were  loyal  Churchmen,  of  blame- 
less, indeed  exemplary  character,  nun  whoso  courage 
and  consistency  had  helped  to  save  the  Church  of  England 
in  a  crisis  of  her  fate ;  they  were  deprived  by  no  Church 

1  Burnet's  History  of  My  Own  Time. 

'  Sec  Life  of  John  Sharp,  by  his  Son.  pp.  LOS  9.    Also  Dean  Laokook'a 
Biehopein  (he  Tower,  p,  198. 

3  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  Dr.  "Robert  South,  prefixed  to  his  Poethumout 

Works  (vol.  vii.  of  HermonH),  p.  115. 


THE   DEPRIVED  FATHERS  29 

authority,  but    simply  by   an   Act    of   Parliament ;    and  /_/ 
through  the  same  civil  power  their  successors  were  to  be 
appointed.     It  looked  very  like  reducing  the  Church  to  a 
mere  appanage  of  the  State. 

Of  course  the  Nonjuring  clergy  regarded  the  deprived 
prelates  as  still  being  their  spiritual  fathers,  and  urged 
them  to  continue  to  exercise  their  episcopal  functions  by 
ordaining  clergy  and  consecrating  bishops  to  keep  up  the 
succession.  The  latter  wish  involved  a  very  serious 
question  which  must  be  discussed  a  little  further.  They 
consented  to  it,  but  were  by  no  means  unanimous.  Bishop 
Ken  disliked  it  extremely,  though  at  last  he  reluctantly 
yielded.  Bishop  Frampton  held  quite  aloof.  Archbishop 
Sancroft  sanctioned  the  measure,  and,  indeed,  nominated 
the  first  new  bishop,  but  he  died  before  the  consecrations 
actually  took  place.  The  matter,  therefore,  was  left  in 
the  hands  of  Bishops  Lloyd,  Turner  and  White,  who,  on 
St.  Matthias'  Day,  1693-4,  clandestinely  consecrated  in 
the  house  of  Mr.  Gifford,  of  Southgate,  where  White 
lodged,  George  Hickes  to  be  Suffragan  Bishop  of  Thetford, 
and  Thomas  Wagstaffe,  of  Ipswich.  A  fuller  account  of 
the  matter  will  come  in  more  appropriately  in  the  next 
chapter.  But  so  far  as  the  '  deprived  Fathers  '  were  con- 
cerned, it  must  be  noted  that  the  greatest  care  was  taken 
that  everything  should  be  done  regularly,  and  that  a  door 
should  be  left  open  for  a  reunion  with  '  the  Establish- 
ment '  when  a  favourable  opportunity  occurred.  Lloyd 
— to  whom  Sancroft  had  delegated  his  archiepiscopal 
powers,  and  who  must  henceforth  be  regarded  as  the 
head  of  the  Nonjuring  communion — wTas  careful  that  both 
the  new  bishops  should  be  connected  with  the  diocese, 
of  which  he  still  considered  himself,  and  was  considered 
by  his  brethren,  the  lawful  incumbent ;  they  were  allowed 
to  exercise  no  episcopal  functions;  they  had  no  districts 


30  THE  NONJURORS 

assigned  to  them,  Thetford  and  Ipswich  being  merely 
their  titles  ;  indeed,  they  had  not  even  the  titles  of  bishops 
ordinarily  assigned  to  them  ;  they  were  consecrated  simply 
to  prevent  the  succession  from  being  broken. 

But,  in  spite  of  all  these  precautions,  the  deprived 
Fathers  have  been  very  generally  and  severely  blamed  by 
Churchmen  for  their  action  in  this  matter.  And  it  is  not 
surprising  that  they  should  have  been  ;  for,  granted  that 
the  separation  had  already  taken  place,  the  new  consecra- 
tions certainly  tended  to  exasperate  it,  and  to  render  the 
possibility  of  a  reunion — a  consummation  devoutly  to  be 
wished  for  by  all  good  Churchmen — much  more  remote. 
It  was  an  act  to  which  they  should  only  have  had  recourse 
in  the  last  resort,  and  have  postponed  to  the  latest  possible 
moment ;  and  they  can  hardly  be  acquitted  of  the  charge 
of  acting  too  hastily  in  a  matter  of  such  grave  moment. 
It  was  quite  different  from  an  ordination ;  as  they  were 
still  bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church,  they  were  justified  in 
continuing  to  ordain ;  and  there  were  amply  sufficient 
bishops  still  living  to  ordain  the  few  who  were  likely  to 
seek  ordination  at  their  hands ;  indeed,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  was  not  until  nearly  twenty  years  later  that  the 
last  of  the  deprived  Fathers  died. 

At  the  same  time,  the  question  is  a  more  difficult  and 
complicated  one  than  is  commonly  supposed;  and  we 
should  not  be  in  too  great  a  hurry  to  condemn  men  who 
had  done  so  much  and  suffered  so  much  for  the  Church 
of  England,  to  which,  according  to  their  lights,  they  were 
assuredly  loyal  to  the  backbone.  There  is  no  doubt  thai 
great  pressure  was  put  upon  them,  and  touching  appeals 
made  to  them.  They  were  placed  in  a  most  awkward 
predicament.  They  were  generous-minded  men,  and  they 
might  well  shrink  from  even  the  appearance  <>f  meanness 
in  leading  their  flocks  into  a  most  difficult  position,  and 


WILLIAM   SANCEOFT  31 

then  leaving  them  in  the  lurch.  The  Nonjurors,  both 
clergy  and  laity,  might  urge  with  some  force  :  You 
have  taught  us,  both  by  example  and  precept,  that  the 
true  Church  of  England  lies  in  our  little  remnant ; 
that  we  are  bound  to  adhere  to  it,  at  the  expense  not 
only  of  our  worldly  advancement,  but  of  our  practical 
usefulness ;  and  now,  having  led  us  into  the  wilderness, 
are  you  going  to  leave  us  there,  without  making  any  pro- 
vision which  you  alone  can  s  apply,  of  chief  pastors  to 
guide  us,  and  indeed  to  continue  our  existence  as  a  part 
of  the  Church  Catholic  when  you  are  dead  and  gone  ? 

The  story  of  those  fathers  who  belonged  to  the  famous 
Seven  has  been  told  over  and  over  again,  and  that  in 
works  which  are  both  accessible  and  popular.1  It  will 
suffice,  then,  to  limit  the  present  account  chiefly  to  that 
part  of  their  history  which  is  connected  with  the  Non- 
juring  episode. 

William  Sancroft  (1617-93)  claims,  of  course,  the 
first  notice ;  not  only  because  he  was  the  highest  in 
position,  but  because  personally,  more  than  any  other, 
he  gave,  so  to  speak,  the  keynote  to  the  rest.  Sancroft, 
though  no  great  writer,  was  essentially  a  bookish  man, 
more  at  home  in  his  library  than  in  the  conduct  of  affairs. 
This  may,  perhaps,  give  the  clue  to  some  apparent  in- 
consistencies in  his  later  conduct.  Had  he  consulted  his 
own  inclination,  he  would  probably  have  been  happier  as 
Master  of  Emmanuel  than  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
As  circumstances,  however,  had  placed  him,  through  no 
seeking  of  his  own,  in  that  exalted  position,  where  he 

1  See  Dean  Luckock's  Tlie  Bishops  in  the  Tower ;  Miss  A.  Strickland's 
Lives  of  the  Seven  Bishops ;  Macaulay's  History  of  England  ;  Buckle's 
History  of  Civilisation;  and  the  Lives  of  the  individual  bishops,  such  as 
D'Oyly's  Life  of  Sancroft ;  Lives  of  Bishop  Ken,  by  Hawkins,  Plumptre, 
'  A  Layman,'  and  Bowles  ;  the  Life  of  Bishop  Frampton,  by  a  contemporary, 
edited  by  Mr.  Simpson  Evans,  &c. 


32  THE  NONJURORS 

was  necessarily  plunged  into  the  vortex  of  public  life,  he 
carried  out  his  principles  unflinchingly  ;  but  he  gladly  took 
the  opportunity  of  seeking  his  beloved  retirement  when- 
ever he  could  do  so  without,  in  his  opinion,  violating  any 
of  those  principles.  There  can  be  no  doubt  what  his 
principles  were :  he  was  an  English  Churchman  to  the 
backbone— a  High  Churchman  in  the  spiritual  rather 
than  in  the  political  sense  of  the  term.  He  had  been 
trained  in  the  school  of  the  Caroline  divines,  and  was  so 
great  an  admirer  of  Laud — that  is,  of  Laud  the  Church- 
man, not  Laud  the  statesman — that  it  was  the  cherished 
project  of  his  life  to  give  to  the  world  the  famous  '  Diary.' ' 
His  constant  immersion  in  business  never  gave  him  time 
to  carry  out  his  project  ;  but  he  enjoined  it  as  an  almost 
sacred  duty  upon  his  chaplain,  Henry  Wharton,  by  whom 
it  was  completed  and  edited  after  his  death.  Even  of 
Laud  the  Churchman  it  was  the  constructive  rather  than 
the  destructive  work  which  he  admired ;  for  he  showed  a 
tenderness  towards  Dissenters  which  was  not  at  all  in  the 
Laudian  vein,  and  there  was  a  marked  change  of  policy 
on  the  side  of  leniency  towards  them  when  Sancroft 
succeeded  Sheldon  in  the  Primacy.  He  also  projected  a 
scheme  of  Comprehension,  of  the  details  of  which  one 
would  have  liked  t<>  have  known  more;  for  a  scheme 
drawn  up  by  a  man  of  Sancroft's  principles  would  never 
have  compromised  the  Church  as  some  such  schemes  did  ; 
while  his  obviously  kind  feelings  towards  Dissenters  would 
have  led  him  to  go  as  far  as  a  consistent  Churchman 
could.  He  was  brought  into  intimate  relations  with  that 
stoutest  of  stout  Churchmen,  John  Cosin,  whom  he  aided, 
pecuniarily  and  otherwise,  in  the  time  of  'the  troubles.1 
Cosin  amply  repaid  the  obligation  after  the  Restoration, 
bringing  Sancroft  into  his  diocese,  making  him  hi 
1  He  spent  his  last  days  in  preparing  flltmoridU  of  Archbi 


WILLIAM   SANCROFT  33 

domestic  chaplain,  giving  him  a  rich  living  and  a  prebend 
in  Durham,  and  being  ready  also  to  provide  him  with  a 
good  wife.  The  latter  favour  Sancroft  declined,  as  he  was 
not  a  marrying  man.  No  one  could  well  be  an  intimate 
friend  of  Cosin  without  being  strengthened  in  his  Church- 
manship ;  and  Sancroft's  was  no  doubt  strengthened  by 
his  two  years'  sojourn  (1661-63)  in  the  diocese  of 
Durham.  But  long  before  that  time  he  had  shown  the 
firmness  of  his  Church  principles  by  refusing  to  take 
'  the  Engagement,'  and  in  consequence  losing  his  fellow- 
ship at  Emmanuel  in  1651,  and  by  writing  two  works 
which  must  have  been  unacceptable  to  the  ruling  powers. 
After  the  Restoration  his  rise  was  rapid.  In  1662  he  was 
elected  Master  of  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge — a  re- 
markable instance  of  the  estimation  in  which  he  was  held 
personally ;  for  the  electors  were  more  or  less  Puritans, 
and  therefore  their  ecclesiastical  sympathies  would  not 
be  with  Sancroft.  In  the  early  part  of  1664  he  became 
Dean  of  York,  and  at  the  close  of  the  same  year  Dean  of 
St.  Paul's  ;  and  then,  in  1678,  he  rose  at  a  bound  to  the 
Primacy,  to  the  surprise  and  annoyance  of  some  over 
whose  heads  he  passed.  He  left  his  mark,  in  the  literal 
as  well  as  the  figurative  sense  of  the  term,  in  all  these 
places  :  the  building  of  the  College  chapel  of  Emmanuel 
was  commenced  in  his  mastership,  and  he  subscribed 
largely  to  it ;  during  his  short  stay  at  York  he  expended 
two  hundred  pounds  more  on  the  fabric  than  the  whole 
income  he  received ;  at  St.  Paul's  he  rebuilt  the  deanery, 
and  was  the  very  life  and  soul  of  the  project  for  rebuilding 
the  Cathedral  after  the  Great  Fire  of  1666,  and  to  this 
fund  also  he  subscribed  largely.  It  seemed  necessary  to 
dwell  on  these  points  because  he  has  been  accused  of 
avarice.  In  the  Revolution  crisis  he  was  very  prominent. 
It  was  Sancroft  who  drew  up  the  petition  to  King  James 

D 


34  THE  NONJURORS 

respecting  the  Declaration  of  Indulgence  ;  Sancroft  who 
first  propounded  the  Regency  scheme ;  Sancroft  who  set 
the  example  of  declining  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  William 
and  Mary ;  Sancroft  who,  in  a  sense,  established  the  Non- 
juring  communion  ;  Sancroft  who  was  mainly  responsible 
for  continuing  the  succession  of  the  Nonjuring  episcopate. 
Such  a  man  would  be  sure  to  make  strong  friends  and 
strong  enemies.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  was 
looked  up  to  by  his  contemporaries  to  an  extent  which  his 
high  position  is  by  no  means  sufficient  to  account  for. 
Bishop  Turner,  of  Ely,  wrote  to  him  in  his  own  name  and 
that  of  his  brother  prelates,  January  11,  1688-9,  asking 
him  to  '  draw  up  propositions  of  our  doctrine  against 
deposing,  electing,  or  breaking  the  succession.'  'This 
scheme,'  he  says,  '  we  humbly  and  earnestly  beg  of  your 
Grace  to  form  and  put  in  order  for  us.  Without  com- 
pliment, your  Grace  is  better  versed  than  all  of  us  put 
together  in  those  repositories  of  canons  and  statutes 
whence  these  propositions  should  be  taken.' '  Bishop 
Nicolson,  a  man  of  a  very  different  type  and  very  different 
opinions,  wrote  a  letter  to  a  clergyman  on  May  15,  1689, 
persuading  him  to  conform  to  the  new  regime.  He 
answers  three  objections,  and  one  of  them  is  the  weight 
of  Archbishop  Sancroft's  example,  which  he  evidently 
thinks  a  very  grave  one.2  Bishop  Burnet,  on  the  other 
hand,  bears  very  hardly  upon  Sancroft  in  his  '  History  of 
My  Own  Time ; '  but  Burnet's  allegations  are  indignantly 
denied  by  men  of  very  varied  opinions,  such  as  Swift, 
South,  Granger,  Salmon,  and  Lord  Dartmouth,  while 
Dryden's  panegyric  of  him,  under  the  name  of  Zadok,  is 
classical.3 

1  D'Oyly's  Life  of  Sancroft,  i.  420. 
*  Bishop  NicolHon's  Epistolary  Corrcs]K>ndcnce,  ii.  9. 
1  See  Miss  Strickland's  Lives  of  Oie  Seven  Bishops,  p.  102;  Swift's  Ode 
to  Archbislwp  Sancroft's  Memory ;    Lord   Dartmouth's   Notes  on    Burnet 


WILLIAM   SANCEOFT  35 

At  the  crisis  of  the  Revolution  the  infirmities  of  age 
were  beginning  to  tell  upon  Sancroft,  and  his  old  love  of 
retirement  and  learned  leisure  was  returning  to  him  with 
redoubled   force.      This    may   serve   to    explain    several 
passages  in  his  conduct.     For  instance,  one  can  perfectly 
well  understand  why,  as  a  sound  Churchman,  he  refused 
to  act  on  the  High  Commission,  which  the  infatuated 
James  revived  in  1687,  setting  a  layman,  and  so  objection- 
able a  layman  as  Judge  Jeffreys,  at  its  head ;  but  it  would 
surely  have  been  better  to  say  boldly  that  he  objected  to 
act  because  it  was  illegal,  irregular,  and  contrary  to  all 
sound  Churchmanship,  instead  of  pleading,  as  he  did,  age 
and  infirmities  as  the  cause  of  his  refusal.     James  naturally 
replied   that   the   same   cause   must   prevent   him   from 
appearing  at  Court  or  in  Council ;  and  accordingly  on  more 
than  one  occasion  when  his  presence  would  have   been 
most  desirable  he  did  not  appear.     Again,  no  one  can  be 
surprised  at  his  refusal  to  crown  William  and  Mary,  or  to 
consecrate  Burnet  to  the  bishopric  of  Salisbury ;  but  it 
did  seem  a  strange  ignoring  of  the  dictum,  '  Qui  facit 
per  alium,  facit  per  se,'  when  he  issued  a  Commission 
empowering    the    Bishop    of    London    and    any    three 
suffragans  of  his  province  to  act  in   his  name,  and  do 
what  he  could  not  conscientiously  do  himself.     It  seemed 
also  a  strange   course,  considering   the   prominent   part 
he  had  taken,  to  retire  entirely  from  public  affairs  after 
the  memorable   meeting  of   the   Peers   at  the  Guildhall 
in  the  spring  of  1689.      At  that  meeting   Sancroft  and 
the   other   bishops   signed  a  declaration   to   the   Prince 
of  Orange,  asking  him  to  call  a  Free  Parliament,  and 
binding  themselves  to  assist  him  in  rescuing  the  nation 

iii.  102 ;  Granger's  Biographical  History  of  England,  iii.  102 ;  N. 
Salmon's  Lives  of  the  English  Bishops  from  the  Restoration  to  the  Revo- 
lution ;  Dryden's  Absalom  and  Achitopliel. 

d  2 


36  THE  NONJURORS 

from  its  dangers  and  disorders.  This  was  the  last  public 
measure  in  which  Sancroft  bore  any  part.1  In  vain  Lord 
Clarendon,  among  others,  entreated  him  to  attend,  at  any 
rate,  one  meeting  of  the  Convention  Parliament.2  His 
presence,  of  course,  was  urgently  needed,  because  it  was 
there  that  his  own  scheme  of  a  Eegency,  which  was  all 
but  carried  in  the  House  of  Peers,3  was  discussed.  One 
can  understand  his  objection  to  the  Lower  House,  as  not 
possessing  the  proper  legal  qualification  of  a  parliamentary 
assembly,  but  this  would  surely  not  apply  to  the  Upper 
Chamber. 

Again,  it  was  at  least  a  doubtful  proceeding  on  his 
part  obstinately  to  decline  to  leave  Lambeth  until  he 
was  forcibly  ejected ;  if  he  so  acted  because  he  thought 
himself  bound  to  cling  to  the  ship  to  the  last,  in  the 
hope  that  a  crash  might  still  be  avoided,  it  showed  a 
strange  lack  of  judgment  considering  the  pass  to  which 
matters  had  come  ;  if  he  did  it  to  create  as  much  trouble 
to  the  Government  as  possible,  it  was  not  a  very  digni- 
fied course  to  take. 

And,  finally,  it  showed  an  extraordinary  lack  of  dis- 
crimination on  his  part  to  publish  in  the  interest  of  the 
Nonjurors  '  Overall's  Convocation  Book,'  that  is,  the 
account  drawn  up  by  Bishop  Overall  of  the  Canons 
promulged  in  1600,  which  really  tended  quite  the  other 
way.  It  is  a  curious  thing  that  in  the  voluminous  con- 
troversy which  this  publication  evoked,  no  stress  appears 
to  have  been  laid  upon  one  significant  fact.  The  very 
reason  why  the  '  Book '  had  so  long  been  in  abeyance 
was  that  King  James  I.,  who,  in  spite  of  all  his  absur- 
dities, had  a  remarkably  clear   ami   shrewd  head,  forbade 

1  Bee  D'Oyly's  Life  of  Sancroft,  i.  BM  (>. 

1  See  Diary  of  Henry,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  p.  247. 

*  See  Burnet's  History  of  My  Own  Time,  H.  B96  7. 


WILLIAM  SANCEOFT  37 

its  publication  because  one  of  its  Canons  (the  XXVIIth) 
decreed  that  a  king  de  facto  who  was  not  de  jure  might  be 
accepted.  Why,  that  was  one  of  the  principles  for  which 
the  Jurors  contended  and  which  the  Nonjurors  denied  ! 
And  so  the  arch-Nonjuror,  Sancroft,  was  really  putting  a 
weapon  into  his  opponents'  hands.  One,  at  least,  of  the 
ablest  of  the  Nonjurors,  William  Sherlock,  who  was  pro- 
bably casting  about  for  some  decent  pretext  for  changing 
sides,  seized  it  at  once,  and  used  it  with  great  force.1 

But  Sancroft,  in  spite  of  some  weaknesses,  was  not 
only  a  good  and  conscientious,  but  also  an  able  and 
learned  man.  His  words  on  his  deathbed,  '  What  I  have 
done  I  have  done  in  the  integrity  of  my  heart,  indeed,  in 
the  great  integrity  of  my  heart,'  were,  I  believe,  applic- 
able to  all  his  conduct,  strange  as  that  conduct  sometimes 
was.  The  Nonjurors,  as  a  body,  always  regarded  him  as 
the  chief  bulwark  of  their  cause  ;  and  men  do  not  often 
make  mistakes  about  matters  in  which  de  vita  et  san- 
guine agitur ;  they  know  who  are  their  best  and  strongest 
friends.2  The  touching  words  on  his  tomb  at  Fressing- 
field  (his  native  place  whither  he  retired  to  die),  which 
are  of  his  own  framing,  tell  the  true  tale  of  his  life : 

William  Sancroft,  borne  in  this  parish,  afterwards  by  the 
same  Providence  of  God,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  at  last 
deprived  of  all  that  he  could  not  keep  with  a  good  conscience, 
returned  hither  to  end  his  life  where  he  began  it,  and  professeth 
here  at  the  foot  of  his  tomb  that  as  he  naked  came  forth,  so  he 
naked  must  return.  The  Lord  giveth  and  the  Lord  taketh 
away,  blessed  be  the  Name  of  the  Lord. 

1  Among  the  Rawlinson  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian  Library  is  an  able  letter 
from  Sherlock  to  Sancroft  on  the  subject. 

2  See,  inter  alia,  the  touching  and  eloquent  Letter  out  of  Suffolk  to  a 
Friend  in  London,  giving  some  Account  of  the  last  Sickness  and  Death  of 
Dr.  William  Sancroft,  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  It  was  published 
anonymously,  but  the  writer  was  undoubtedly  Thomas  Wagstaffe)  the 
elder.     See  infra,  p.  117. 


38  THE   NONJUEOES 

Whither  his  thoughts  turned  at  the  last  may  be 
gathered  from  these  two  petitions  which  he  put  up  less 
than  an  hour  before  death  : 

(1)  That  God  would  Bless  and  Preserve  this  poor 
Suffering  Church  which  by  this  Kevolution  is  almost 
destroyed ; 

(2)  That  He  would  Bless  and  Preserve  the  King, 
Queen,  and  Prince  ;  and  in  His  due  time  to  restore  them 
to  their  just  and  undoubted  rights. 

He  died  at  Fressingfield  in  November  1693,  and  was 
buried  in  Fressingfield  churchyard. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  separation  Sancroft 
delegated  his  archiepiscopal  authority  to  the  deprived 
Bishop  of  Norwich  (Dr.  Lloyd),  who  was  thus  from  the 
first  the  real  head  of  the  Nonjurors. 

William  Lloyd  (1637-1710)  was  a  Welshman  by 
birth  and  education,  being  born  at  Bala,  in  Merioneth- 
shire, and  educated  at  Ruthin  School,  until  his  admission 
as  a  sizar  at  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  in  February 
1654-5.  He  had  a  varied  experience  in  the  Ministry. 
He  first  served  as  chaplain  to  the  English  Merchants' 
Factory  in  Portugal ;  he  was  then  made  vicar  of  Batter- 
sea,  then  chaplain  to  the  Lord  Treasurer  Clifford,  then 
(1672)  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's,  then  (1676)  Bishop  of 
Llandaff,  then  (1679)  Bishop  of  Peterborough,  and  finally 
(1685)  Bishop  of  Norwich.  There  is  no  evidence,  so  far 
as  I  am  aware,  to  show  that  he  was  inefficient  in  any  of 
these  capacities.  On  the  contrary  he  had  the  reputation 
of  being  an  excellent  preacher,  and  is  said  to  have  owed 
his  early  elevation  to  the  Bench  to  this  reputation;  he 
was  certainly  an  active  and  efficient  bishop,  and  his  loss 
was  especially  lamented  at  Llandaff,  when  he  was  trans- 
lated to  Peterborough.  During  the  short  time  of  his  in 
cumbency   of   Norwich   before   the  Revolution    (1685-8), 


WILLIAM  LLOYD  39 

he  won  the  confidence  and  affection  of  the  diocese  in  a 
very  remarkable  degree.  One  who  knew  the  circum- 
stances well,  and  lived  only  in  the  next  generation,  affirms 
that  '  in  him  the  diocese  was  deprived  [when  he  became  a 
Nonjuror]  of  a  very  able  and  worthy  pastor,  a  man  of 
great  integrity  and  piety,  who  thoroughly  understood  all 
the  parts  and  duties  of  his  function,  and  had  a  mind 
fully  bent  to  put  them  all  in  execution  for  the  honour  of 
God  and  good  of  the  Church  on  all  occasions.' l  The 
friendship  of  the  dean  (Dr.  Sharp)  has  been  already 
noticed ;  on  account  of  that  friendship  Sharp  absolutely 
refused  to  succeed  him,  and  gladly  joined  in  a  petition 
that  some  way  might  be  found  for  retaining  his  services. 
The  petition  was  proposed  by  Luke  Milbourne,  the 
younger,  who  was  then  a  beneficed  clergyman  in  the 
diocese,  and  was  a  very  different  type  of  man  from  Lloyd. 
Mr.  Milbourne  has  written  a  most  vivid  account  of  the 
affair,  beginning  :  '  At  a  numerous  meeting  of  the  clergy 
I  proposed  that  we  should  join  in  a  petition  to  the 
Government,  that  the  rigour  of  the  depriving  Act  might 
be  mitigated,  and  our  Bishop  might  be  permitted  to  live 
and  exercise  his  Episcopal  function  among  us.  To  this 
all  subscribed  very  freely.' 2  It  should  be  added  that 
Mr.  Milbourne  himself  never  became  a  Nonjuror,  but 
accepted  afterwards  more  than  one  piece  of  preferment  in 
the  '  Kevolution  Church.' 

Another  instance  of  the  confidence  which  his  diocese 
had  in  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  appears  in  an  Appendix  to 
the  contemporary  Life  of  Kettlewell.  It  is  in  the  form 
of   a  'Letter   from   the   Clergy  of   the  Archdeaconry  of 

1  Life  of  Dr.  Humphry  Prideaux,  Dean  of  Norwich,  published  in  1748, 
p.  73. 

2  See  A  Legacy  to  the  Church  of  England,  Vindicating  her  Orders  from 
tin*  Objections  of  Papists  and  Dissenters,  ii.  341. 


40  THE   NONJURORS 

Sudbury,    lying    under   suspension,    to   their    Diocesan, 
William,  Bishop  of  Norwich,'  and  runs  thus : 

We,  your  Lordship's  Curates,  neighbours  to  Dr.  Bisby,1  lying 
under  suspension,  and  (which  is  worse)  very  hard  censures  from 
most  we  converse  withal,  and  finding  the  time  of  our  depriva- 
tion to  be  near  at  hand,  do  take  the  boldness  by  him  to  beg 
your  Lordship's  Blessing,  and  withal  earnestly  to  crave  your 
Lordship's  direction.  For  though  we  can  think  of  nothing  but 
losing  all,  yet  we  are  passionately  desirous  to  be  instructed  how 
we  shall  leave  our  respective  cures,  whether  voluntarily,  or  stay 
till  particular  Intruders  thrust  us  out  by  pretext  of  law :  As 
also,  which  way  to  behave  ourselves,  to  preserve  (if  possible) 
the  old  Church  of  England.  We  believe  your  Lordship  thinks, 
and  we  are  bold  to  say,  you  shall  find  us  dutiful  in  anything 
you  command  or  enjoin,  as  you  shall  think  will  serve  for  the 
interest  of  the  Church. 

Then  follow  nine  signatures  and  the  names  of  their  cures.'2 
There  were  more  Nonjurors  in  the  diocese  of  Norwich 
than  in  any  other  diocese  except  London  ; 3  and  the  reason 
seems  to  be  simply  the  influence  of  its  bishop,  and  the 
respect  which  he  had  inspired. 

It  was  a  great  disappointment  to  Bishop  Lloyd  that 
he  was  prevented  from  being  a  Confessor  for  the  Church 
of  England  by  joining  in  the  Petition  to  King  James  II. 
which  led  to  the  imprisonment  of  the  seven  bishops  in 
the  Tower.  He  visited  them  in  prison,  took  an  active 
part  in  helping  them  to  prepare  their  defence,  and  in 
fact  so  identified  himself  with  their  cause,  that  he  was 
warned  that  '  he  might  yet  keep  company  with  them.' 
The  two  with  whom  he  was  most  associated  were 
Sancroft  and  Ken.  The  biographer  of  the  former  tells 
us  that  '  William  Lloyd,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  was  a  person 

1  For  an  account  of  Dr.  Bisby  or  Bisbie,  see  infra,  pp.  224-6. 

2  See  Kettlewell's  OompUot  Works,  with  Life,  i.  Appendix,  No.  2. 

*  Unless,  indeed,  we  count  the  Nonjurors  result  nt  at  the  two  Tur- 
ns belonging  to  the  dioceses  of  Oxford  and  Ely  respectively ;  but  they  seem 
to  me  to  belong  to  a  different  category. 


WILLIAM  LLOYD  41 

in  whose  wisdom  and  integrity  Archbishop  Sancroft 
placed  the  greatest  confidence.' l  Lloyd  influenced  the 
archbishop  quite  as  much  as  the  archbishop  influenced 
him.  Sancroft  was  the  more  learned,  but  Lloyd  was 
the  stronger  character  of  the  two.  With  Ken  he  was 
associated  in  1685  in  a  laudable  effort  to  '  bring  about  a 
greater  vigilance  in  the  admission  of  candidates  to  holy 
orders  ; ' 2  and  the  correspondence  between  the  two  old 
friends,  though,  alas  !  for  one  short  period  rather  un- 
friendly, is  most  interesting  and  voluminous. 

In  the  Eevolution  crisis  Bishop  Lloyd  identified  himself 
heart  and  soul  with  the  Nonjurors.  We  find  him  visiting 
the  Nonjuring  Bishop  of  Chichester  (Dr.  Lake),  on  his 
deathbed  in  1689,  and  after  he  had  read  Lake's  famous 
1  Profession,'  desiring  the  Dean  of  Worcester  (Dr.  Hickes) 
'to  carry  it  with  him  to  Lambeth.'3  He  joined  with 
the  other  prelates  in  indignantly  repudiating  any  share 
in  producing  '  The  Jacobite  Liturgy,'  which  created  so 
great  a  sensation  in  1690  ;  but  his  known  principles  made 
him  suspected ;  and  in  the  riots  which  broke  out  against 
the  Jacobites  after  the  defeat  of  the  English  and  Dutch 
fleets  by  the  French  off  Beachy  Head  just  before  the 
battle  of  the  Boyne,  his  London  house  in  Old  Street  was 
attacked  by  the  mob,  and  he  himself  with  his  wife  and 
child  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  the  Temple.4 

Sancroft  had  so  high  an  opinion  of  Lloyd  that  in  a 
formal  document,  dated  February  9,  1691-2,  'from  my 
poor  cottage  (which  is  not  yet  made  a  sufficient  covering 
for  me  in  this  sharp  winter)  here  in  Fressingfield,  at  this 

1  D'Oyly's  Life  of  Sancroft,  i.  269,  note.     See  also  Life  of  Ken,  by  a 
Layman,  pp.  586-7. 

2  Mr.  Abbey's  English  Church  and  its  Bislwps,  i.  169. 

3  See  History  of  the  College  of  S.  John  the  Evangelist,  Cambridge,  by 
T.  Baker,  edited  by  J.  E.  B.  Mayor,  part  ii.  p.  687. 

4  See  Plnmptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  66. 


42  THE   NONJURORS 

time  indeed  very  hard  frozen,1  situate  within  the  bounds 
of  your  diocese,'  he  delegated  to  him  all  his  archiepiscopal 
powers.2 

Kettlewell's  first  biographer  says  that  Sancroft  selected 
Lloyd,  as  being  his  eldest  suffragan.    But  this  was  only  be- 

1  This  is,  of  course,  a  play  upon  words,  which  Sancroft,  after  the  fashion 
of  Bishop  Andrewes  and  those  of  that  date,  was  fond  of  making. 

2  The  delegation  runs :  '  Wilhelmus,  Providentia  Divina  Ecclesise  Metrop. 
Cant,  humilis  minister,  reverendo  admodum  in  Christo  patri,  et  fratri  in 
Domino  charissimo,  Gulielmo,  eadem  Providentia  etiamnum  Nordovicensi 
Episcopo,  salutem  et  fraternam  in  Domino  charitatem :  Cum  ego  nuper  ex 
sedibus  Lambhithianis  vi  laica  pulsus,  et  non  inveniens  in  urbe  vicinii  ubi 
tuto  possem,  aut  commode  commorari,  procul  secesserim,  quaerens  ubi 
fessus  senio  requiescerem,  multa  autem  jam  turn  remanserint,  et  emergent 
quotidie  plura,  eaque  momenti  maximi,  Dei  scilicet  et  Ecclesiee  negotia, 
nullibi  ita  commode  atque  expedite  ac  in  magno  illo  rerum  gerundarum 
theatro  transingenda  ;  tibi  igitur,  frater  dilectissime,  qui  pro  ea  qua  polles 
animi  fortitudine,  et  pio,  quo  flagras,  zelo  domus  Dei,  adhuc  in  suburbis 
Londinensibus  (palantibus  undique  cseteris)  moraris  et  permanes,  adeo  ut 
neminem  illuc  habeam  ita  jtroi^ux0''.  quique  ita  yv^atais  rerum  mearum  et 
ecclesiae  satagat,  tibi,  inquam,  ad  hsec  omnia  pensitanda,  et  finaliter  ex- 
pedienda,  hoc  quicquid  est  muneris  mei  et  pontihcii,  fretus  prudential  tun  et 
solita  in  rebus  gerendis  solertia,  committo  in  Domino,  teque  Vicarium 
meum  ad  praemissa  rerumque  mearum  et  negotiorum  actorem,  factorem  et 
nuntium  generalem,  vigore  harum  literarum  eligo,  facio  et  constituo.  .  .  . 
Dicam  summarie  et  de  piano,  quoscunque  tu,  frater,  prout  res  et  occasio 
tulerit,  assumpseris  et  adjunxeris  tibi,  elegeris  et  approbaveris,  confirma- 
veris  et  constitueris,  Ego  quoque  (quantum  in  me  est  et  de  jure  possum) 
assumo  pariter  et  adjungo,  eligo  et  approbo,  confirmo  et  constituo.  Uno 
verbo,  quicquid  in  istius  modi  negotiis  feceris  ipse  aut  faciendum  duxeris, 
id  omne  quantum  et  qualecunque  illud  fuerit,  mihi  audenter  imputa.  Ecce 
Ego  Wilhelmus  manu  mea  scripsi.  Ego  praestabo  non  solum  latum  sed  et 
gratum  insuper  habiturus.  Splendor  autem  Domini  Dei  nostri  sit  super  te, 
frater,  et  opera  manuum  tuarum  dirigat  et  confirnict.  Quin  et  eripiat  te. 
fratresque  nostros  omnes  ex  ore  leonis,  et  de  manu  canis,  et  a  cornibus 
unicorniuni  exaudiat  vos.  Mactetque  denique  et  cumulet  omni  bcnedic- 
tione  spirituali  in  caelestibus  in  Christo  Jesu. 

Datum  e  proprio  conducto  (quod  enim  mihi  molior  tugurium  super- 
raniente  acri  hyeme  nonduni  exoodificatuni  est)  hie  in  campo  gelido,  nunc 
riiam  profundi  gelato,  sito  intra  tiuo  dkeceseos  ponuvria,  nono  die 
Februarii,  Anno  Domini,  1691 

W.  Cant. 
Actum  in  pnesentia  mea,  W.  Sancroft,  Jan.,  Notarii  publici. 
There  is  also  an  English  copy,  and  it  is  not  quite  clear  whether   the 
b    was   a   translation   of   the   Latin   or   the  Latin  of   the   English. 
Sancroft  probably  Wrote  both. 


WILLIAM  LLOYD  43 

cause  Lloyd  attained  a  bishopric  at  an  unusually  early  age. 
In  point  of  years,  Lloyd  was  one  of  the  youngest,  if  not 
the  youngest,  of  all  the  '  invalidly  deprived  Fathers.'  The 
real  reason  was  rather  that  Sancroft  thought  Lloyd  the 
man  best  fitted  for  the  post.  He  dwells  on  his  fortitude 
of  mind  and  his  pious  zeal,  as  shown  in  his  dwelling 
near  the  centre,  London,  where  he  would  be  most 
accessible,  but  at  the  same  time  most  in  danger,  and  to 
his  activity  in  business.  Lloyd  seems  to  me  to  have 
fully  justified  Sancroft's  choice.  He  was  placed  in  a 
very  trying  situation  as  head  of  a  shadowy  episcopate, 
with  which,  however,  a  great  number  of  both  clergy  and 
laity  were  in  their  heart  of  hearts  in  sympathy ;  or  at  any 
rate,  for  whom,  in  the  euphemistic  language  of  a  con- 
temporary, they '  had  a  reserved  kindness.'  An  injudicious, 
hot-headed  man  might,  under  such  circumstances,  have 
created  endless  disorder  and  trouble,  especially  if  he  were, 
like  Bishop  Lloyd,  a  Nonjuror  of  the  extreme  type  and 
an  ardent  Jacobite  to  boot ;  but  Lloyd  managed  his  flock 
with  great  firmness  and  judgment ;  and  both  the  Esta- 
blished Church  and  the  civil  Government  had  reason  to  be 
grateful  to  him  if  they  had  only  known  it.  Indeed,  some 
who  threw  in  their  lot  entirely  with  the  new  Government 
did  know  it.  Dr.  White  Kennett,  for  instance,  who  will 
hardly  be  suspected  of  partiality  for  a  pronounced  Non- 
juror, bears  this  remarkable  testimony  to  Lloyd's  good 
management  of  his  delicate  task  : 

The  character  given  of  him  by  his  Metropolitan  is  above  any 
other  that  can  be  given.  And  the  trust  which  he  reposed  in 
him  is  certainly  so  great,  as  nothing  possibly  could  be  greater. 
Whether  one  or  the  other  were  in  the  right,  either  he  in  giving 
or  this  in  accepting,  is  not  the  question.  How  likewise  he  dis- 
charged the  high  trust  committed  to  him,  and  with  what  pru- 
dence and  piety  he  transacted  matters  relating  to  it,  so  as  not 
to  give  thereby  any  umbrage  to  the  Government,  or  as  little  as 


44  THE   NONJURORS 

possible,  will  be  proper  for  an  Ecclesiastical  Historian  of  those 
times  to  explain  distinctly.1 

And  Dr.  D'Oyly,  who  strongly  disapproves  of  Lloyd's 
action  in  the  matter  of  the  new  consecrations,  also  testifies 
to  his  prudence  and  caution.2 

The  men  with  whom  Lloyd  was  bound  to  come  into 
collision  were  the  moderate  Nonjurors,  and  he  did  come 
into  a  temporary  collision  with  one  of  the  very  best  of 
them — Bishop  Ken.  Ken  never  approved  of  the  commis- 
sion given  by  Sancroft  to  Lloyd,  and  protested  against  it. 
Lloyd  indeed  writes  (May  9,  1691),  '  I  have  been  able  to 
silence  the  phancifull  objections  of  my  brother.'  But  San- 
croft seems  still  doubtful,  and  replies,  ■  I  am  glad  if  our  good 
Brother  is  satisfied  concerning  his  former  objection  against 
my  Commission.'3  Ken  probably  saw,  what  anyone  who 
reads  between  the  lines  can  see,  that  the  commission 
extended,  by  implication,  to  making  new  consecrations  of 
bishops,  to  which  he  strongly  objected ;  and  Lloyd  must 
have  felt  in  honour  bound,  by  his  acceptance  of  the  com- 
mission, to  join  in  making  them,  if  required.  However, 
the  matter  was  tided  over ;  and  Ken  and  Lloyd  were  in 
amicable  and  frequent  correspondence  until  the  close  of 
1703,  when  the  question  of  Ken's  cession  of  his  diocese  to 
Hooper  arose.  Then  there  was  a  sharp  contention  between 
the  two  good  men,  which  almost  reminds  one  of  the  sharp 
contention  between  St.  Paul  and  St.  Barnabas.  They 
really  were  at  cross-purposes.  Ken  only  thought  of  keeping 
the  depositum  of  the  faith  safe,  and  he  was  sure  that  this 
would  be  done  by  the  like-minded  Hooper.  Lloyd  quite 
agreed  with  Ken  in  his  high  opinion  of  Hooper,  and 
expressed  it  strongly  both  before  and  during  the  dispute. 

1   Quoted  in  Bryclges'  JUstitutn,  i.  .r>77. 
•  Be*  P'Oyly's  Life  of  Bancroft,  ii.  32. 

3  I'lumptrc's  IAfe  of  Ken,  ii.  76-7. 


WILLIAM  LLOYD  45 

But  that  was  not  the  point ;  a  man  may  be  an  excellent 
man,  and  yet  have  no  right  to  occupy  a  post  to  which  he 
is  not  lawfully  appointed  ;  and  that  was  just  what  Lloyd 
thought  with  regard  to  Hooper.  Ken  suspected  that  Lloyd 
was  drawing  back  from  the  views  which  he  had  expressed, 
through  fear  of  his  Jacobite  friends.  But  Lloyd  seems  to 
me  to  explain  his  conduct  quite  clearly  and  satisfactorily. 
If  those  who  appointed  Hooper  had  the  right  to  appoint 
him,  he  would  warmly  have  welcomed  the  appointment  of 
so  good  a  Churchman  and  so  good  a  man.  But  one  of  the 
very  raisons  d'etre  of  the  Nonjurors  was  that  the  intru- 
ders into  sees  not  canonically  vacant,  not  being  them- 
selves lawful  bishops,  were  not  the  persons  to  consecrate 
others. 

Bishop  Lloyd  lived  for  nearly  twenty  years  of  his  life 
at  Hammersmith,  then  a  suburb,  though  not  a  very  distant 
suburb,  of  London.  There  '  he  governed  his  Church  with 
piety,  candour,  and  zeal,  of  which  many  instances  might 
be  produced,  handed  down  to  us  by  the  clergy  of  his 
different  dioceses.' !  In  his  later  years  he  held  a  position 
among  the  Nonjurors  which  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
was  unique.  All  but  three  of  the  '  invalidly  deprived 
Fathers '  had  passed  away.  Two  of  the  three,  Ken  and 
Frampton,  had  virtually  ceased  to  be  members  of  the 
Nonjuring  community,  though  they  never  actually  took 
the  oaths.  Lloyd  alone  was  left,  and  he  was  evidently 
regarded  with  a  reverence  to  which  no  one  else  could 
aspire.  Men  went  to  see  him,  as  on  a  pilgrimage,  to  ask 
his  blessing.  He  died  on  New  Year's  Day,  1710,  and  the 
event  is  thus  noted  by  the  learned  Thomas  Smith  in  a 
letter  to  Hearne : 

The  same  day  my  misfortune  befell  mee  [he  had  had  a  bad 

1  Lives  of  the  English  Bishops  from  the  Restoration  to  the  Revolution? 
by  N.  Salmon,  1733  ;  sub  nomine  Lloyd,  William. 


46  THE  NONJURORS 

fall]  dyed  the  truly  venerable  Bp.  Lloyd  of  Norwich  :  a  very 
wise  man  and  an  undaunted  Confessor  of  this  depressed  and 
afflicted  Church  ;  upon  whose  life  rolles  Mr.  Dodwell's  odd 
hypothesis  in  his  '  Case  in  View.' '  What  will  be  the  con- 
sequences of  it,  time  only  must  shew.  I  went  to  Hammer- 
smithe  on  H.  Innocents'  Day  to  receive  this  good  Bps  last  bless- 
ing :  and  it  added  to  my  paine  new  degrees  of  trouble  that 
I  could  not  attend  upon  him  to  his  grave.2 

The  learned  Thomas  Baker,  who  occupied  somewhat 
the  same  position  at  Cambridge  that  Thomas  Smith  did 
at  Oxford,  writes  also  in  terms  of  the  highest  praise  of 
Bishop  Lloyd.3  That  Sancroft  was  greatly  influenced  by 
prudential  motives  in  his  choice  of  Lloyd  as  his  vicar- 
general  seems  probable  from  the  fact  of  his  preferring 
him  to  the  next  bishop  who  comes  under  our  notice — 
a  rather  older  and  much  more  prominent  man. 

Francis  Turner  (1636-1700)  was  by  far  the  most 
active  and  zealous  of  all  the  deprived  Fathers  in  behalf 
of  the  exiled  Stuarts.  His  life  before  the  Kevolution  had 
been  simply  that  of  an  earnest  and  active  priest,  and 
afterwards  bishop,  in  full  sympathy  with  the  teaching  of 
the  Caroline  divines,  with  some  of  whom  he  had  held 
the  closest  intimacy.  From  the  time  when  they  were 
schoolfellows  together  at  Winchester  he  maintained  a 
very  close  friendship  with  Thomas  Ken,  which  was 
slightly,  but  only  slightly,  interrupted  towards  the  last  by 
rather  divergent  views  on  the  subject  of  the  Revolution. 
Like  Ken,  he  proceeded  from  Winchester  to  New  College, 
Oxford,  where  both  of  them  were  scholars  and  fellows 
together.  He  took  Holy  Orders,  and  in  1664  was  pre- 
sented to  the  living  of  Therfield,  in  Herts,  in  succession 
to  that  staunch  Churchman,  John  Barwick.     It  was  pro- 

1  See  infra,  p.  235. 

1  See  Ileaine's  Collections,  Oxf.  Hist.  Soc,  ii.  335  and  note. 
•  See  History  of  St.  Jolm's  College,  Cambridge,  by  T.  13aker;  edited  by 
J.  E.  B.  Mayor,  pp.  270-1. 


FEANCIS  TUENEK  47 

bably  this  that  brought  him  into  intercourse  with  Peter 
Gunning,  then  Master  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge, 
though  he  may  have  known  him,  at  least  by  reputation, 
before ;  for  Gunning  had  been  chaplain  at  New  College. 
Gunning  was  a  great  divine  of  the  Laudian  school,  and 
just  the  man  to  influence  such  a  one  as  Turner.  He 
persuaded  him  to  become  incorporated  at  Cambridge, 
soon  after  his  institution  to  Therfield,  and  in  1664  Turner 
was  admitted  as  a  fellow-commoner  of  St.  John's.  In 
1670  he  succeeded  Gunning  in  the  mastership  of  the 
college.  In  1683  he  became  rector  of  Great  Haseley, 
and  in  the  same  year  was  made,  first,  Dean  of  Windsor, 
and  then  Bishop  of  Eochester.  Finally,  in  1684,  he  again 
succeeded  his  friend  and  patron,  Gunning,  as  Bishop  of 
Ely.  But  he  had  a  more  powerful  friend  than  Gunning. 
He  was  chaplain  to  the  Duke  of  York,  and  when  the 
duke  became  king  in  1685,  Bishop  Turner  preached  the 
Coronation  sermon.  James  was  always  his  steady  friend 
and  patron,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  Turner  conceived 
for  him  a  deep  personal  attachment,  which  accounts  to  a 
great  extent  for  the  bishop's  future  conduct.  But  this 
attachment  did  not  prevent  him  from  taking  an  indepen- 
dent line  of  his  own.  He  had  no  scruple  about  offending 
James  by  preaching  before  him  '  a  very  severe  sermon 
against  the  errors  of  the  Eomish  Church  on  November  5, 
1685,' l  and  he  bravely  protested  against  James's  proceed- 
ings after  the  suppression  of  the  Monmouth  rebellion. 
He  also  joined  heartily  the  ranks  of  the  seven  bishops 
who  presented  the  Petition  to  the  King  about  the  Decla- 
ration of  Indulgence,  and  was  one  of  the  imprisoned.  In 
fact,  in  the  language  of  a  contemporary,  he  was 

as  zealous  as  any  one  of  the  Seven  Bishops  in  setting  himself 

against  two  contrary  religious  factions  then  united  at  Court,  and 

1  Lives  of  the  Seven  Bishops,  by  Agnes  Strickland,  p.  178. 


48  THE   NONJURORS 

in  opposing  the  King's  intentions  about  the  Declaration  of 
Indulgence ;  but  is  said  to  have  very  heartily  afterwards  re- 
pented for  having  gone  so  far  therein  as  he  did,  and  to  have 
acknowledged  that  their  going  to  the  Tower,  when  they  might 
easily  have  prevented  the  same  by  entering  into  mutual  recog- 
nisances for  each  other,  as  the  King  would  have  had  them,  was 
a  wrong  step  taken,  and  an  unnecessary  punctilio  of  honour  in 
Christian  bishops.1 

The  whole  of  this  description  is  exactly  what  one 
would  expect.  Bishop  Turner  opposed  King  James  out 
of  the  very  love  he  bore  him,  for  he  felt  it  was  the  part 
of  true  friendship  to  try  to  rescue  him  from  evil  counsel- 
lors ;  but  he  never  intended  matters  to  go  so  far  as  they 
did ;  and  there  is  an  air  of  painful  surprise  in  his  excla- 
mation when  the  King  accused  the  seven  of  being  rebels  : 
'  We  rebels  !  We  would  die  at  your  Majesty's  feet  !  ' 
One  can  well  understand  his  bitter  regret  when  he  found 
that  the  refusal  of  himself  and  his  brethren  to  take  the 
advice  of  Lord  Clarendon,  and  enter  into  recognisances 
for  one  another,2  led  to  King  James's  downfall — a  regret 
which  it  is  said  that  Sancroft  also  shared. 

When  the  catastrophe  came,  Turner  of  course  did  not 

hesitate  one  moment  about  refusing  the  new  oaths ;  and 

there  seems  to  me  to  be  no  moral  doubt,  though  there 

might  be  legal  ones,  that  henceforth  he  set  himself  heart 

and  soul  to  the  work  of  restoring  his   beloved  master. 

Another  of  the  seven,  Bishop  Lloyd,  of  St.  Asaph,  tried 

in  vain  to  influence  him  in  favour  of  William  and  Mary  ; 

Turner  replied,    '  he  would  never  take  an  oath  to  any 

monarch  during  the  life  of  James   II.,'  and  on  Lloyd's 

further  asking  '  what  he  would  do  if  James  were  dead  ?  ' 

1  It  is  possible,'  he  said,  '  I  might  take  the  oath  to  his 

successor,'    evidently   meaning   his    son.''      In    that  very 

1  Lift  and  Compleat  Works  of- John  Kettlewell,  i.  L68. 

■  Bee  Diary  of  Henry,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  for  Jane  7.  [688,  p.  175. 

'  Lives  of  the  Serin  Bithopa,  by  A;:ik\s  Stricklniul.  ]>.  l'.lfi. 


FRANCIS  TURNEE  49 

interesting  contemporary  record,  Lord  Clarendon's  Diary, 
we  have  many  notices  of  Bishop  Turner  at  this  time. 
On  December  31,  1689,  Clarendon  writes  : 

The  Bishop  of  Ely  was  with  me,  and  told  me  that  the  Bps. 
of  London  [Compton]  and  S.  Asaph  [Lloyd]  had  been  with  Lord 
Canterbury  [Sancroft— sic]  to  know  what  he  and  the  rest  could 
do  to  prevent  being  deprived  ;  that  Feb.  1  drew  near.  Could 
they  make  no  steps  towards  the  government  ?  Some  expedients 
they  proposed,  as  that  a  short  bill  should  be  passed,  giving  the 
king  power  to  dispense  with  them  [the  oaths  ?]  during  pleasure  ; 
to  all  which  the  Archbishop,  Norwich  and  Ely  said  they  could 
do  nothing ;  if  the  king  thought  it  for  his  own  sake  that  they 
should  not  be  deprived,  he  must  make  it  his  business ;  they 
could  not  vary  from  what  they  had  done.1 

'  The  Archbishop,  Norwich  and  Ely,'  these  were  the 
three  irreconcilables — but  for  them,  matters  might  pos- 
sibly have  taken  a  different  course ;  and  Ely  was  the 
most  irreconcilable  of  all.  When  the  fatal  1st  of  Feb- 
ruary arrived,  and  he  was  deprived,  Turner  protested 
against  the  validity  of  the  sentence  in  the  Market  Place 
of  Ely,  and  continued  to  preach  every  Sunday  in  his 
robes  in  the  chapel  of  Ely  House,  Hatton  Garden.2  Lord 
Clarendon  was  one  of  his  regular  congregation,  and  fre- 
quently refers  to  the  chapel  services  in  his  diary.3 

Turner  joined  with  the  rest  of  his  brethren  in  their 
indignant  repudiation  of  the  charge,  made  by  the  anonymous 
author  of  the  'Modest  Enquiry,'  that  they  were  the 
authors  of  the  Jacobite  Liturgy ;  in  which  repudiation 
they  also  added  that  they  never  held  any  correspondence 
with  France ;  that  they  were  concerned  in  no  plots,  and 
that  they  should  make  it  their  practice  to  study  to  be  quiet, 
to  bear  their  cross  patiently,  and  to  seek  the  good  of  their 
native  country.     '  We  have,'  they  add,  '  all  of  us  not  long 

1  Diary  of  Henry,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  p.  299. 

2  Lives  of  the  Seven  Bishops,  by  A.  Strickland,  p.  201. 

3  Diary,  pp.  303-4,  January  30,  1690-1,  February  11,  &c. 

E 


50  THE  NONJURORS 

since,  either  actually,  or  in  full  preparation  of  mind, 
hazarded  all  we  had  in  opposing  Popery  and  arbitrary 
power  in  England '  (this  was  perfectly  true  of  Turner  as 
well  as  of  the  rest),  '  and  we  shall,  by  God's  grace,  with 
greater  zeal  again  sacrifice  all  we  have,  and  our  very  lives, 
too,  if  God  shall  be  pleased  to  call  us  thereto,  to  prevent 
Popery,  and  the  arbitrary  power  of  France,  from  coming 
upon  us  and  prevailing  over  us.'  This  'Vindication' 
Turner  signed  in  July  1690.  In  December  1690  he 
was  suspected  of  being  involved  in  Lord  Preston's  plot, 
and  it  has  not  been  obscurely  hinted  that  he  must  have 
committed  perjury.  This  is  a  grave  charge  to  bring 
against  a  Christian  bishop,  and  the  facts  must  be  looked 
into.  By  some  writers  the  Gordian  knot  has  been  boldly 
cut  in  two  different  ways  :  (1)  by  denying  that  there  was 
any  genuine  plot  at  all ;  (2)  by  denying  that  there  is  any 
sufficient  evidence  that  the  compromising  letters  were 
written  by  Turner. 

Anthony  Wood's  account  of  the  affair  runs  thus : 
1  In  December  1690  there  was  a  pretended  discovery  of 
a  pretended  plot  of  the  Jacobites  or  Nonjurors,  whereupon 
some  of  them  were  imprisoned  ;  and  Dr.  Turner  being 
suspected  to  be  in  the  same  pretended  plot,  he  withdrew 
and  absconded.' !  Dean  Luckock  enters  into  the  sub- 
ject more  at  length,  and  comes  to  the  same  conclusion.2 
Miss  Strickland,  while  not  denying  the  reality  of  the 
plot,  contends  that  there  was  not  the  slightest  proof  that 
the  incriminating  letters  were  written  by  Turner  ;  ■  and 
Mr.  Lathbury  doubts  whether  there  was  any  plot,  and 
maintains  (rightly)  that  it  was  never  proved  that  the 
letters    were    written    by    Turner.'       I  Van     IMuinptre    is 

1  Athena  Oxonicnses,  sub  nomine  Turner,  Franois. 
-  The  Bislwps  in  the  Tower,  by  Deu  Luokook,  p.  197. 
5  I, ires  of  the  Seven  Bishops,  Ac,  by  Actios  Strickland,  pp. 
4  Hietory  of  the  Nonjurors,  p.  78. 


FRANCIS  TURNER  51 

evidently  of  opinion  that  there  was  a  real  plot  and  that 
the  letters  were  really  Turner's,1  but  acquits  him  of  the 
charge  of  perjury,  of  which  Lord  Macaulay  and  others 
have  insinuated  that  he  was  guilty.2 

Dean  Plumptre's  view  seems  to  me,  on  the  whole,  to 
be  the  correct  one.     The  memorable  words  in  the  inter- 
cepted   letters,    which    seemed    to  compromise   all    the 
deprived  Fathers,  and   indeed  the   Nonjurors  generally, 
were :  '  I  speak  in  the  plural,  because  I  write  my  elder 
brother's  sentiments  as  well  as  my  own,  and  the  rest  of 
the  family,  though  lessened  in  number ;  yet  if  we  are  not 
mightily  out  in  our  accounts,  we   are   growing  in   our 
interest,  that  is,  in  yours ; '  and  in  the  second  letter,  '  I 
say  this  in  behalf  of  my  elder  brother,  and  the  rest  of  my 
nearest  relations,  as  well  as  for  myself.' 3     The  letters  are 
addressed  to  Mr.   and   Mrs.  Eedding,  by  whom,   it  has 
never  been  doubted,  are  meant  King  James  and  his  Queen. 
That    there   was    no    legal    proof   against    Turner,    and 
that  the  idea  of  a  plot,  in  which  the  Nonjuring  prelates 
were  involved,  was  eagerly  seized  upon  without  too  close 
inquiry  by  the  Government,  as  furnishing   a   very  con- 
venient pretext  for  filling  up  the  sees,  is  fully  admitted. 
But  that   the   letters  were  really  Turner's,  that  by  his 
'  elder  brother '  he  meant  Sancroft,  and  by  '  the  rest  of 
his  nearest  relations '  the  other  Nonjuring  prelates,  that 
the   expressions  were  intended  to  reassure  King  James 
that  he  had  still  powerful  friends,  that  there  was  really 
'  a  plot ' — or,  as  the  actors  themselves  would  have  put 
it,  that  '  measures  were  being  taken  to  enable  the  King 
to  enjoy  his  own  again' — appears  to  me  to  be  morally 
certain. 

1  Life  of  Bishop  Ken,  vol.  ii.  ch.  xxi.  pp.  70-1. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  82-3. 

3  Quoted  by  Mr.  Lathbury  (Hist,  of  Nonjurors,  p.  78)  from  Ralph's 
History  of  England,  ii.  255,  where  the  correspondence  is  printed. 

e  9. 


52  THE   NONJURORS 

There  seems  at  this  time  of  day  [says  a  writer  of  the  next 
generation]  to  be  little  reason  to  deny  or  conceal  what  must  at 
the  long  run  turn  out  to  his  [Turner's]  credit,  viz. :  loyalty  and 
gratitude  to  his  prince  and  patron,  and  zeal  for  the  Church  of 
which  he  was  a  bishop,  and  which  at  that  crisis  was  in  the 
utmost  danger  from  the  party  which  brought  in  the  Revolution.1 

This  is  written  with  express  reference  to  the  '  Preston 
Plot,'  not  to  Turner's  later  conduct,  about  wThich  there 
is  no  doubt ;  and  its  truth  is  surely  borne  out  by  Turner's 
own  letter  to  Sancroft,  written  from  his  hiding-place, 
after  a  proclamation  had  been  issued,  and  a  reward  offered 
for  his  discovery.  The  letter  is  worth  quoting  at  some 
length. 

You  see,  no  disappointments  or  discouragements  shall  (by 
the  gi'ace  of  God)  make  me  give  over  what  I  think  my  duty ; 
though  I  am  disabled  from  doing  any  service  at  home,  and 
must  seeke  abroad  ;  I  have  almost  settled  my  business,  and  laid 
my  designs  a  little  better,  I  hope,  than  the  unfortunate  Lord 
did  2  to  gett  out  of  their  clutches ;  for,  after  so  fatall  a  mis- 
carriage, I'me  well  aware,  that  there  will  bee  no  staying  for  me, 
unless  I  could  find  in  my  heart  to  make  upp  with  the  Govern- 
ment, which  I  abhor  the  thought  of.  It  must  at  least  cost  me 
a  long  imprisonment,  should  I  appeare,  which  is  bad  and  hard 
enough,  tho'  I  believe  I  could  scarce  bee  a  sufferer  by  any  fair 
tryall.  But  what  if  it  should  prove  a  foule  one  ?  Upon  the 
whole  matter  I  thinke  myself  (blessed  be  God)  mighty  safe  in 
my  present  concealment ;  and  had  I  adjusted  but  the  rest  of 
my  domestique  settlements,  I  would  vanish  till  another  Revolu- 
tion, if  God  lett  me  live  to  see  it.  Meantime  I  hope  in  God  by 
the  course  I  mean  to  take,  I  may  putt  myselfe  into  a  better 
capacity  than  ever  of  serving  the  Church  as  well  as  my  country. 
But  to  tell  my  resolutions  more  particularly  is  not  desirable  at 
present,  nor  convenient  for  you  to  know  this  :  rather  lett  me 
leave  you  in  condition  to  protest  your  innocense  if  examinee! 
hereafter.    Nothing  troubles  me  so  much  as  that  my  Intercepted 

1  History  of  st.  John   the  BvomgeUet'e  College,  Cambridge,  l»y  Tho. 
Baker  ;  edited  by  J.  D.  B.  Mayor,  part  ii.  p.  '.|s7  ;  continuation  by  Cole. 
■  Viscount  Preston. 


FRANCIS  TUENEE  53 

letters  (through  the  almost  incredible  supineness  of  the  unhappy 
gentleman,1  and  contrary  to  the  assurances  hee  gave  us)  may 
prejudice  my  brethren.  But  you  must  take  pains  to  cleare 
yourselves  and  protest  your  innocence.  .  .  .  Doe  what  you  will, 
and  whatever  you  think  most  expedient,  to  take  off  any  blame 
from  yourselves,  and  leave  me  to  shift  for  my  selfe,  &c.2 

This  letter  surely  needs  no  comment ;  but  how  is  it 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  Declaration  of  July,  in  which 
Turner  and  the  rest  expressly  affirmed  that  '  they  never 
held  any  correspondence  with  France ;  that  they  were 
concerned  in  no  plots,  and  that  they  should  make  it  their 
practice  to  study  to  be  quiet,  to  bear  their  cross  patiently, 
and  to  seek  the  good  of  their  native  country '  ?  For  none 
except  Turner  is  there  any  need  of  explanation ;  it  was 
an  entirely  unwarranted  insinuation  on  his  part  that  his 
brethren  were  ready  to  join  him,  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  they  were  indignant  against  him  for  making  it.  But 
for  himself  ?  In  those  excited  times,  when  events  moved 
rapidly,  it  was  a  far  cry  from  July  to  December ;  and 
there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  any  plot  was  being 
hatched,  or  even  meditated,  when  Turner  signed  the 
Declaration.  Moreover^  the  object  of  the  '  Preston  Plot ' 
(if  there  was  a  Preston  Plot)  was  not  the  same  as  that 
indicated  in  the  Jacobite  Liturgy,  which  the  bishops  so 
indignantly  repudiated  in  their  Declaration  in  July. 

The  memorial  drawn  up  by  the  conspirators  in  December 
distinctly  disavowed  the  idea  of  making  England  a  subject  pro- 

1  Mr.  Ashton. 

2  Tanner  MSS.,  vol.  xxvii.  fol.  235.  In  reference  to  this  letter,  Sancroft 
writes  to  Lloyd :  '  Shall  we  declare  our  innocence  ?  But  then  nothing  is 
proved  against  him  ["  our  brother  of  Ely,"  as  he  calls  Turner  in  an  earlier 
part  of  the  letter],  and  men  and  angels  will  hardly  be  able  to  prove  any- 
thing against  us  ; '  and  on  May  18,  1691,  doubtless  referring  to  Turner, 
'  I  am  sorry  that  our  good  brother  has  got  so  high  up  the  pinnacle.  It 
was  dangerous  to  fall  from  thence,  could  the  informers  have  tript  up  his 
heels  ; '  and  on  April  2,  1692,  he  has  '  news  about  Fr.  of  Ely  that  makes 
me  tremble.'     See  Plumptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  71-2. 


54  THE  NONJUEOES 

vince  of  France.  It  could  not  be  governed  as  a  Eoman  Catholic 
country.  The  French  force  which  was  to  accompany  James 
was  to  be  only  for  his  personal  protection  and  that  of  his  loving 
subjects,  and  was  then  to  be  dismissed.  The  king  was  to 
promise  to  govern  according  to  law,  to  protect  the  established 
religion,  to  refer  all  points  in  dispute  between  himself  and  his 
people  to  a  free  Parliament.1 

Admitting,  however,  that  a  conscientious  man  like 
Turner  might,  with  a  little  manipulation,  reconcile  his 
conduct  in  the  summer  with  his  conduct  in  the  ensuing 
winter,  it  must  be  confessed  that  his  declaration  that  '  he 
should  make  it  his  practice  to  study  to  be  quiet,'  &c,  was 
not  exactly  fulfilled  in  his  future  life.  It  is  certain  that 
from  1691  onwards  he  was  in  constant  correspondence 
with  the  Court  of  St.  Germains,  that  he  was  deeply  in- 
volved in  the  Fenwick  plot  of  1696  ;  in  fact,  that  during 
the  last  ten  years  of  his  life  the  restoration  of  King  James 
was  the  object  he  continually  set  before  him.  It  was  a 
very  sad  life.  At  first  he  seems  to  have  been  in  less 
straitened  circumstances  than  the  rest ;  for  among  the 
Macpherson  Papers  is  one  containing  proposals  from 
King  James's  friends,  in  1694,  to  the  exiled  monarch  in 
which  the  following  passage  occurs  :  '  They  desire  that  if 
your  Majesty  desires  to  call  any  of  the  Bishops  [to 
St.  Germains]  it  may  be  the  Bishop  of  Ely.  They  think 
he  would  be  for  your  service,  and  he  is  in  a  condition  to 
live  without  being  burdensome  to  your  Majesty.'  But 
this  comparative  independence  did  not  last  long ;  he  was 
for  the  rest  of  his  life  more  or  less  a  wanderer.  Now  we 
find  him  in  France;  now  at  Putney;  now  in  France  again  : 
now  '  in  a  retired  condition  in  the  lodgings  of  his  brother, 
Dr.  Thomas  Turner,'  at  Oxford  ;  now  in  hiding  under 
the  name  of  Harris.     In  1698  he  is  in  London  attending 

1   l'lumptre'K  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  84. 


FRANCIS  TUENBR  55 

the  funeral  of  Bishop  White,  about  which  he  wrote  a 
most  interesting  letter,  which  will  be  noticed  presently ; 
in  1699  he  removed  with  his  only  daughter  (so  often  and 
so  prettily  referred  to  in  Bishop  Ken's  letters  *)  into  the 
country;  in  1700  he  dies,  and  the  restless  spirit  is  at 
rest.  It  seems  a  thousand  pities  that  the  closing  years 
of  a  valuable  and  useful  life  should  have  been  spent,  not 
to  say  wasted,  in  matters  in  which,  as  a  Christian  bishop, 
he  surely  had  no  direct  concern.  All  that  we  hear  of 
him  when  he  was  in  his  proper  sphere  as  a  working 
bishop  is  to  his  credit.  He  won  the  good  opinion  of 
people  who  by  no  means  agreed  with  his  views.  Thus 
Rachel,  Lady  Kussell,  representing  the  Whig  and  Low 
Church  element,  writes  to  her  spiritual  adviser,  Dr.  Fitz- 
william  (afterwards  a  Nonjuror)  :  '  Lord  Bedford  expresses 
himself  hugely  obliged  to  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  your  friend, 
to  whom  you  justly  give  the  title  of  good,  if  the  character 
he  very  generally  bears  justly  belongs  to  him.' 2  His 
admirable  '  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  Ely,'  1686 
in  preparation  for  his  coming  visitation,  gives  one  the 
impression,  not  only  of  a  spiritually  minded  man  most 
anxious  to  do  his  duty,  but  also  of  one  who  from  long 
practical  experience  knew  what  a  clergyman's  duty  was. 
In  short,  he  was  a  thoroughly  practical  bishop,  and  fully 
maintained  the  high  standard  of  efficiency  in  the  diocese 
which  had  been  bequeathed  to  him  by  his  great  prede- 
cessor, Bishop  Gunning.  Bishop  Ken,  his  early  and 
lifelong  friend  in  spite  of  divergent  views,  evidently 
regarded  him  not  only  with  the  greatest  personal  affection, 
but  also  with  deep  respect,  and  after  Turner's  death 
always  referred  to  him  as  'that  good  man  now  with  God,'3 

1  See  Plumptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  52-3,  and  passim. 

2  Letters  of  Lady  Rachel  Ricssell,  p.  308. 

3  See  Ken's  Letters  in  Plumptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  107,  126,  and  passiw. 


56  THE  NONJURORS 

or  'our  deare  friend  now  with  God.'  Those  who  knew 
Turner  best  loved  him  most,  and  he  bore  a  much  higher 
character  among  his  contemporaries  and  those  of  the 
next  generation  than  he  does  in  popular  histories.  Thus, 
Hawkins,  the  great-nephew  and  first  biographer  of  Ken, 
writing  only  thirteen  years  after  Turner's  death  (1713), 
calls  him  '  a  most  truly  pious  prelate  ' ; x  Thomas  Baker, 
who  belonged  only  to  the  next  generation,  '  a  most  excel- 
lent prelate  ' 2 ;  and  Dean  Hickes,  who  knew  him  intimately, 
1  that  most  learned  and  very  reverend  father  in  Christ, 
Francis  Turner,  not  so  long  since  Bishop  of  Ely — o 
MaKapirijs — the  recollection  of  whose  friendship  I,  the 
survivor,  so  enjoy  that  I  seem  to  have  lived  happily  in 
that  I  have  lived  in  the  closest  union  with  him.' 3  That 
he  was  rash  and  impetuous  and  a  thoroughgoing  Jacobite, 
who,  to  the  dismay  of  his  friends,  was  apt  to  commit  not 
only  himself  but  them,  goes  without  saying  ;  but  if  he 
was  a  traitor  he  was  what  was  called  in  a  pamphlet  of  the 
time  '  a  loyal  traitor ' ;  and  if  he  had  lived  in  quieter  times 
he  would  have  done  better,  if  less  exciting,  work  for  the 
Church  he  loved.  His  few  writings  will  be  noticed  in  a 
later  chapter. 

One  naturally  associates  the  names  of  the  two  friends. 
Turner  and  Ken,  together;  but  regarded  from  the  point 
of  view  of  this  work  they  must  be  separated,  for  they 
belonged  to  different  types  of  Nonjurors ;  and  there  is  yet 
another  deprived  Father  who  was  certainly  of  the  Turner 
type,  and  must  therefore  come  in  between  the  friends. 

Thomas   White    (1628-98),    like  Turner,  had  passed 

1  Life  of  Ken. 

1  '  l'rsesul  optimus.'  History  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge.  '  Cata- 
logus  Episcoporum  qui  e  collegio  Divi  Joannis  Evangelista)  prodiemnt. 
Franciscus  Turner.' 

*  'Linguarum  Vetcrum  Septcntrionalium  Thesaurus  '  (170.r>),  Praffrtio, 
p.  xlvi. 


THOMAS  WHITE  57 

through  a  varied  course  of  parochial  experience.  Having 
graduated  at  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  in  1646,  he 
contrived,  like  several  Royalists,  to  hold  during  the  Pro- 
tectorate the  post  of  lecturer  (at  St.  Andrew's,  Holborn), 
•  the  door  being  left  so  widely  ajar  that  there  was  room 
for  Eutulian  as  well  as  Trojan  to  enter  in.' 1  After 
the  Eestoration  he  became  successively  incumbent  of 
Newark-on-Trent  (1660),  Allhallows  the  Great,  London 
(1666),  and  Bottesford  in  Leicestershire  (1679).  A  story 
is  told  of  him,  giving  a  promise  of  pugnacity  on  his  part, 
which  happily  was  not  fulfilled.  He  was  remarkable  for 
his  physical  strength  and  agility,  and  on  one  occasion, 
certainly  after  he  was  a  clergyman,  he  was  insulted  by  a 
trooper  of  the  King's  Guard,  who,  on  being  reproved  by 
White,  challenged  him  to  a  fair  fight.  White  accepted 
the  challenge  and  won  the  victory,  and  the  trooper  asked 
his  pardon.  Charles  II.  was  characteristically  delighted 
with  the  exploit,  and  jokingly  threatened  to  impeach 
White  for  high  treason  for  assaulting  one  of  the  King's 
guards.  In  1683  he  was  made  chaplain  to  the  Princess 
Anne,  daughter  of  the  Duke  of  York,  on  her  marriage 
with  the  Prince  of  Denmark.  He  became  her  favourite 
chaplain,  and  had  much  to  do  with  the  formation  of  her 
Church  principles.  In  the  same  year  he  was  promoted  to 
the  archdeaconry  of  Nottingham,  and  in  1685  to  the 
bishopric  of  Peterborough,  where  he  set  himself  to  the 
much-needed  work  of  remedying  the  abuse  of  pluralities. 
As  Bishop  of  Peterborough  he  was  appointed  by  James  II. 
to  exercise,  together  with  Bishops  Crewe  and  Sprat, 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  the  diocese  of  London  on  the 

1  Bishop  Pearson's  Minor  Theological  Works,  with  Memoir  of  the 
Author,  by  E.  Churton,  p.  xxxi.  Pearson  was  a  London  lecturer  during 
the  same  period  at  St.  Clement's,  Eastcheap,  and  the  immortal  Exposition 
of  the  Creed  contains  in  substance  a  series  of  lectures  delivered  by  him 
there. 


58  THE  NONJUEORS 

suspension  of  Bishop  Compton.  James,  to  whom  White 
owed  his  rise,  doubtless  thought  that  he  should  find  him, 
like  the  other  two,  a  convenient  tool ;  but  he  soon  found 
that  White  was  a  man  of  very  different  metal.  When 
the  infatuated  monarch  issued  his  second  Declaration  of 
Indulgence,  Bishop  Cartwright  drew  up  a  form  of  thanks 
to  the  King,  and  persuaded  Bishops  Parker  and  Sprat 
to  sign  it.  Thinking,  no  doubt,  that  White  was  also  a 
Court  bishop,  he  requested  him  also  to  sign ;  but  White 
asked  for  a  day  to  deliberate,  and  then  absolutely  refused.1 
Consistently  with  this  refusal  he  became  one  of  the  im- 
mortal Seven,  and  was  imprisoned  in  the  Tower.  Like 
the  majority  of  the  Seven,  who  opposed  the  King  in  his 
prosperity,  he  refused  to  desert  him  in  his  adversity.  It 
was  expected  that  the  influence  of  his  patroness,  the 
Princess  Anne,  would  lead  him  to  follow  her  example, 
when  she  abandoned  her  father ;  but  those  who  expected 
this  did  not  understand  the  independence  of  White's 
character.  He  refused  the  oaths  to  William  and  Mary 
without  a  moment's  hesitation,  and  identified  himself  with 
the  Nonjurors — indeed  with  the  most  advanced  section  of 
them— heart  and  soul.  He  was,  of  course,  one  of  the 
five  who  issued  in  1698  '  The  Charitable  Recommenda- 
tion of  the  Deprived  Bishops,'  in  behalf  of  the  relief  fund 
started  by  Kettle  well  for  distressed  Nonjurors,  and  had 
to  appear  before  the  Privy  Council.  But  before  this,  in 
the  early  spring  of  1G93-4,  he  had  committed  himself 
still  further,  by  not  only  taking  part  is  the  first  new 
consecrations  of  Nonjuring  bishops,  but  by  allowing  the 
ceremony  to  be  performed  in  his  own  lodging  in  the 
house  of  Mr.  Giffard,2  at  Southgate,  in  Middlesex.     His 

'  S.  i    Bishop  Cartwright'a  Diary,  p.  47. 

»  See   infra,  p.  HH  note,  when  a  full  account  of   this    Mr.  GifTurd    is 


THOMAS  WHITE  59 

last  public  act  showed  the  same  courageous  spirit.  In 
1696-7  he  attended  Sir  John  Fenwick  on  the  scaffold— 
a  bold  thing  to  do,  for  shortly  before  some  other 
Nonjurors  had  been  brought  into  trouble  by  a  some- 
what similar  act.  Sir  John  refused  to  see  any  clergy- 
man who  had  taken  the  oaths,  and  two  or  three 
Nonjuring  clergy  who  were  applied  to  naturally  shrank 
from  the  dangerous  task.  White  dared  to  accept  it, 
but  with  characteristic  independence  afterwards  offended 
some  Jacobites  by  protesting  with  horror  against 
the  supposition  that  he  had  any  sympathy  with  the 
plot — if  plot  there  was— for  the  assassination  of  King 
William. 

Bishop  White  appears  to  have  been  one  of  those  men 
who  combine  an  iron  determination  of  will  and  a  most 
undaunted  courage  with  a  meek  and  gentle  nature  which 
loves  privacy  and  shrinks  from  thrusting  itself  to  the 
front.  Though  his  principles  were  evidently  those  of 
the  more  extreme  Nonjurors,  he  never  joined  in  any 
plots ;  he  lived  quite  contentedly  in  his  poverty,  and 
practised  such  economy  that  he  was  able  to  give  much 
out  of  his  little  to  the  poor;  he  made  no  enemies  and 
many  friends  ;  he  never  entered  into  controversy,  and 
attracted  no  attention  except  by  the  sweetness  of  his 
disposition.  When  he  passed  quietly  away  in  1698,  an 
unpleasant  incident  occurred  at  his  funeral.  He  was 
buried  in  the  churchyard  of  St.  Gregory's,  which,  the 
church  having  been  destroyed,  was  incorporated  in  the 
precincts  of  St.  Paul's,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  dean, 
but  with  a  separate  curate  for  the  parish.  This  curious 
arrangement  will  account  for  the  circumstances  recorded 
below.  The  funeral  was  attended  by  forty  Nonjuring 
clergymen,  and  several  laymen  who  held  the  same 
opinions.     The  rest  may  be  told  in  the  words  of  Bishop 


60  THE   NONJURORS 

Turner,  written  to  his  brother,  the  President  of  Corpus 
Christi  College,  Oxford  : 

I  stayed  in  town  till  yesterday  that  I  might  attend  the 
funeral  on  Saturday  night.  It  was  earnestly  desired  by  many 
that  I  should  perform  the  office  at  the  grave  (in  St.  Gregory's, 
that  is,  in  the  churchyard,  for  there  is  no  church).  I  yielded,  if 
it  might  be  permitted,  which  I  told  them  would  hardly  be,  and 
that  my  poor  name  would  hardly  pass  muster.  Yet  the  curate 
of  the  place  agreed  with  all  the  ease  and  respect  imaginable. 
But  his  de  facto  Dean,  Dr.  Sherlock,  coming  to  know  it,  forbade 
it  expressly,  nor  could  any  intercessions  prevail  with  him  to 
suffer  any  one  of  the  deprived,  not  the  most  obscure  or  least 
obnoxious,  to  officiate.  This  did  not  hinder  me  nor  anybody 
else  from  waiting  on  the  corpse  to  the  grave,  the  Bishop  of 
Kilmore  x  and  myself  with  four  others  holding  up  the  pall.  As 
soon  as  our  bearers  set  down,  we  made  our  exit,  and  all  the 
clergy  with  most  of  the  gentry  followed.  The  great  reason 
alleged  by  Dr.  Sherlock  for  refusing  it  was  the  daring  im- 
prudence of  the  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells  (Dr.  Ken)  for  bury- 
ing Mr.  Kettlewell  even  in  his  habit.  Is  not  this  a  precious 
manikin  of  a  Dean  ? a 

Sancroft,  Lloyd,  Turner  and  White  are  distinguished 
from  the  other  four  with  whom  we  have  to  do  in  this 
chapter  by  the  doubtful  recommendation  of  being  instru- 
mental in  perpetuating  the  separation  ;  and  therefore  it 
seemed  necessary  to  treat  them  consecutively.  Otherwise, 
next  to  Sancroft,  if  not  before  him,  the  bishop  who 
might  certainly  claim  the  first  place,  alike  for  his  saintli- 
ness,  his  ability  and  attainments,  for  the  prominent  part 
he  took  in  Church  affairs,  and  for  the  reputation  he  still 
holds  among  Churchmen,  would  be  Thomas  Ken. 

Thomas  Ken  (1637-1710),  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells, 
has  been  the  subject  of  so  many  biographies,  sketches, 

1  Dr.  Sheridan,  the  only  Nonjuring  Irish  bishop. 

2  Tanner  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian  Library.  A  similar  account  is  given  in 
a  latter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  by  J.  Mandeville,  US.  980 

at  Laiiiin  i)i  Palaee. 


THOMAS  KEN  61 

and  essays,1  that  there  is  no  need  to  dwell  on  the  facts  of 
his  life.  In  almost  every  history,  whether  of  Church  or 
State,  in  England  during  the  period  when  he  lived,  there 
will  be  found  the  name  of  Thomas  Ken  deservedly  hold- 
ing a  high  and  honoured  place.  His  character  and  career 
are  just  of  the  kind  to  lay  hold  on  the  imagination,  and 
writers  of  almost  all  schools  seem  to  find  a  special  charm 
in  him.  But  his  connection  with  the  Nonjuring  question 
is  somewhat  complicated  and  requires  elucidation. 

Now  there  is  no  trait  in  Bishop  Ken's  attractive  cha- 
racter more  conspicuous  than  his  moral  courage.  If, 
therefore,  he  was  hesitating  and  vacillating  in  regard  to 
the  new  oaths,  it  was  not  because  he  had  not  the  courage 
of  his  convictions,  but  because  he  simply  wished  to  do  what 
was  right,  and  was  much  perplexed  to  know  what  icas 
the  right  course.,  The  man  who  boldly  set  his  face  against 
immorality  at  the  risk  of  incurring  the  wrath  of  a  great 
Prince,  which  he  did  when  chaplain  at  The  Hague — the 
man  who  absolutely  refused  to  allow  his  prebendal  house 
at  Winchester  to  be  used  as  a  lodging  for  King 
Charles  II. 's  mistress — the  man  who  preached  at  the 
Chapel  Boyal  itself,  urging  Churchmen  and  Dissenters  to 
unite  against  the  encroachments  of  Borne  at  the  very  time 
when  King  James  II.  was  doing  all  he  could  to  encourage 
those  encroachments — the  man  who,  when  called  to 
account  for  that  sermon  by  the  King,  to  whom  it  was 
reported,  bravely  replied,  '  If  your  Majesty  had  not 
neglected  your  own  duty  of  being  present,  my  enemies 
had  missed  this  opportunity  of  accusing  me ' — the  man 
who  was  an  active  and  prominent  member  of  the  Seven 
who  were  imprisoned  in  the  Tower — was  not  the  man  to 

1  Biographies  by  Hawkins,  Bowles,  '  A  Layman '  (Anderdon),  and 
Plumptre ;  sketches  by  Miss  Strickland,  Dean  Luckock,  Lord  Macaulay, 
&c,  &c. 


62  THE  NONJUROES 

be  afraid  of  acting  up  to  his  convictions.  He  was  afraid, 
but  it  was  a  fear  of  acting  wrongly,  whichever  course  he 
took.  On  the  one  hand,  he  felt  keenly — and  who  shall 
blame  him  for  feeling  ? — that  it  was  a  very  serious  thing 
to  make  anything  like  a  schism  in  the  Church.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  felt  quite  as  keenly  the  sanctity  of  the 
oath  which  he  had  already  taken  to  King  James,  and  to 
which  this  new  oath  was  plainly  contradictory.  He  also 
realised  that,  in  common  with  others,  though  in  a  far 
more  moderate  degree  than  many,  he  had  committed 
himself  to  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  and  how  was 
that  doctrine  consistent  with  the  acceptance  of  a  king 
who  had  ousted  the  King  de  jure  with  an  armed  force  ? 
He  was  also  torn  different  ways  by  his  nearest  and  dearest 
friends.  Perhaps  there  were  no  two  for  whom  he  had 
more  regard  than  Francis  Turner,  with  whom  he  had  been 
intimate  from  boyhood,  and  George  Hooper,  who  had 
been,  now  his  predecessor,  now  his  successor,  by  curious 
alternations,  in  various  posts,  and  had  won  Ken's  esteem 
by  his  admirable  management  of  them  all.  Ely  House, 
where  Turner  resided,  and  Lambeth  Kectory,  the  house 
of  Hooper,  had  been  the  places  where  he  stayed  when 
visiting  London.  At  the  critical  period  when  he  was  in 
doubt  about  the  oaths  he  was  brought  more  into  contact 
with  his  later  friend,  Hooper,  than  with  his  earlier  friend, 
Turner;  and  Turner  was  evidently  nervous  as  to  what 
the  result  might  be ;  for  he  writes  to  Sancroft  on  the 
Ascension  Day,  1(389,  '  This  very  good  man  [Ken]  is 
warping  from  us  and  the  true  interest  of  the  Church 
towards  a  compliance  with  the  new  Government,'  and  he 
is  afraid  that  'your  parson  of  Lambeth  has  BUperfined 
upon  our  brother  of  Bath  and  Wells.' '  The  expression 
'  your  parson  '  of  course  refers  to  the  fact  that  Archbishop 
1  Plomptre,  ii.  40. 


THOMAS  KEN  63 

Sancroft  when  residing  at  Lambeth  Palace  was,  in  a  way, 
a  parishioner  of  Hooper,  the  rector  of  Lambeth.  Others 
also  thought  as  Turner  did.  Dr.  Fitzwilliam,  of  whom 
we  shall  hear  more  presently,  '  knew  him  to  be  fluctuat- 
ing,' and  feared  that  '  the  consideration  of  the  peace  of 
the  Church  '  might  lead  him  to  comply.1  Dodwell  wrote 
a  letter  of  remonstrance  which  nettled  him  extremely 
(the  good  man's  natural  temper  was  sharp,  though  subdued 
by  grace),  and  called  forth  from  him  an  indignant  reply.2 
There  were  undoubtedly  grounds  for  the  Nonjurors'  alarm. 
Turner  could  never  '  draw '  his  friend  '  up  to  the  same 
height  as  himself  in  the  matter  of  the  oaths ;  ' 3  and  the 
other  friend,  Hooper,  all  but  won  him  over.  The  story  is 
very  curious  and  very  characteristic  of  the  man.  He  had 
gone  to  Lambeth  to  consult  Hooper  on  the  matter,  and 

On  parting  one  night  to  go  to  bed,  the  Bishop  seemed  so 
well  satisfied  with  the  arguments  Dr.  Hooper  urged  to  him, 
that  he  was  inclined  to  take  the  oaths.  But  the  next  morning 
he  used  these  expressions  to  him  :  '  I  question  not  but  that  you 
and  several  others  have  taken  the  oaths  with  as  good  a  con- 
science as  myself  shall  refuse  them  ;  and  sometimes  you  have 
almost  persuaded  me  to  comply  by  the  arguments  you  have 
used  ;  but  I  beg  you  to  urge  them  no  further  ;  for  should  I  be 
persuaded  to  comply,  and  after  see  reason  to  repent,  you  would 
make  me  the  most  miserable  man  in  the  world.'  Upon  which 
the  Doctor  said  he  would  never  mention  the  subject  any  more 
to  him,  for  God  forbid  he  should  take  them.4 

And  so  Bishop  Ken  became  a  Nonjuror  because  he 
thought  it  was  the  '  safer '  course  ;  but  it  was  '  safer  '  for 
exactly  the  opposite  reasons  to  those  which  would  weigh 
with  less  sensitively  conscientious  men.     To  speak  para- 

1  Letters  of  Lady  Rachel  Russell. 
1  Plumptre  gives  the  reply  in  full,  ii.  41-2. 

1  So  writes  the  contemporary  author  (or  authors)  of  the  Life  of  Kettle- 
well,  with  evident  regret. 

4  Quoted  by  Dean  Plumptre  (ii.  43-4)  from  Prowse  MS.  and  Hawkins. 


64  THE  NONJURORS 

doxically,  it  was  safer  because  it  was  more  dangerous, 
because  it  was  against,  not  because  it  was  for,  his  interest, 
[f  he  took  the  oaths,  and  suspected  afterwards  that  he 
had  been  biassed,  however  unconsciously,  by  interested 
motives,  he  would  be  miserable.  He  seems,  however,  to 
have  had  an  uncomfortable  feeling  that  he  might  be 
mistaken  after  all ;  but  it  was  better  to  make  a  mistake 
which  rendered  him  all  but  a  pauper  than  to  make  one 
which  would  keep  him  still  in  affluence. 

One  can,  however,  well  understand  how  from  the  very 
first  the  thoroughgoing  Jacobites  would  regard  him  as  a 
rather  weak-kneed  brother,  and  his  subsequent  conduct 
tended  to  strengthen  that  opinion.  He  still  intimated, 
not  obscurely,  that  James  might  yet  forfeit  his  allegiance — 
if,  for  instance,  he  gave  up  Ireland  to  France,  as  it 
was  suspected  that  he  intended  to  do ;  and  on  James's 
death  he  would  probably  have  complied  had  it  not  been 
for  the  ill-advised  imposition  of  the  Abjuration  Oath. 
Unless,  indeed,  '  the  Church  point ' — which,  as  was 
natural  with  such  a  man,  weighed  far  more  than  '  the 
State  point ' — still  barred  the  way.  The  lay  depriva- 
tions were  a  very  great  shock  to  him  as  a  Churchman  ; 
he  still  considered  himself  as  the  canonical  Bishop  of 
Bath  and  Wells  ;  he  publicly  protested  from  the  pulpit 
of  Wells  Cathedral  against  his  uncanonical  deprivation  ; 
he  professed  himself  still  ready  to  perform  his  episcopal 
functions  for  all  who  were  ready  to  accept  them  ;  he 
made  a  point  of  continuing  to  sign  himself  '  Tb.08.  Bath 
and  Wells,'  though  another  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wella 
was  appointed.  He  was  the  more  ready  to  do  all  this 
when  he  found  that  the  intending  bishop  was  one  whom 
he  characterised,  rather  too  sever,  >ly,  as  'a  Latitudinariax) 
traditor  '  who  would  not  keep  the  drpositum  safe. 

l-'.ui  he  doe    qoI    "'in  bo  have  been  comfortable  in  his 


THOMAS   KEN  65 

strange  position ;  he  regarded  it  as  a  cross  to  be  endured, 
and  a  cross  much  harder  to  bear  than  the  loss  of  his 
worldly  wealth  and  rank,  which  he  counted  as  naught. 
It  will,  perhaps,  be  a  shock  to  some  readers,  as  it  certainly 
was  to  the  writer  when  he  was  reluctantly  convinced  of  the 
fact,  to  learn  that  in  the  oft-quoted  passage  in  Bishop  Ken's 
will,  in  which  he  declares  that  he  '  dies  in  the  Communion 
of  the  Church  of  England,  as  it  stands  distinguished  from 
all  Popish  and  Puritan  Innovations,  and  as  it  adheres  to 
the  Doctrine  of  the  Cross,'  the  Doctrine  of  the  Cross  does 
not  mean  the  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  but  the  Doctrine 
of  Passive  Obedience;  in  fact,  just  what  Ken's  friend 
Kettle  well  meant  by  it.1 

Ken,  like  many  Nonjurors,  accepted,  in  a  way,  Queen 
Anne  as  his  sovereign ;  he  declined,  indeed,  the  offer 
which  she  made  to  restore  him  to  his  beloved  see  in 
1703-4,  but  that  was  on  the  ground  of  age  and  infirmi- 
ties. He  gratefully  accepted  from  her  a  slight  addition 
to  his  very  modest  income,2  and  he  was  more  than  ready 
to  recognise  as  bishop  one  who  was  a  younger  and,  as  he 
in  his  humility  thought,  a  better  man  than  himself.  So 
he  at  once,  and  gladly,  ceded  to  Hooper  all  his  rights, 
and  henceforth  signed  himself  simply  '  T.  K.'  He  fondly 
hoped  that  this  would  tend  to  close  the  separation — 
a  consummation  for  which  he  had  long  devoutly  prayed. 
He  had  deeply  regretted  the  new  consecrations,  though 
he  reluctantly  gave  his  assent  to  them.  He  never  joined 
in  any  Jacobite  plots.     He  consorted  as  intimately  with 

1  See  Christianihj  a  Doctrine  vf  tlie  Cross;  Kettle-well's  Com/pleat 
Works,  vol.  ii.,  esp.  pp.  143-4.  Also  i.  167,  where  the  writer,  who  knew 
Ken  personally,  says  expressly:  'The  "Doctrine  of  the  Cross"  in  Bishop 
Kenn's  will  is  equivalent  to  asserting  the  Doctrine  of  Passive  Obedience  as 
the  proper  Characteristic  of  the  Church  of  England.  .  .  .  Neither  can  there 
be  any  manner  of  doubt  that  it  was  approved  of  by  him  in  the  same  sense 
as  Mr.  Kettlewell  wrote  it  in.' 

*  See  Plumptre,  ii.  149. 

F 


66  THE  NONJURORS 

Jurors  as  Nonjurors.  He  did  not,  like  many,  consider 
the  Established  Church  in  a  state  of  schism ;  he  encouraged 
'  private  persons '  to  attend  its  services,  though  as  ■  a 
public  person  '  he  himself  could  not  join  in  services  where 
the  *  characteristics '  (that  is,  where  the  reigning  sovereigns 
were  prayed  for  by  name)  were  used.  There  was,  there- 
fore, nothing  really  inconsistent  either  with  his  principles 
or  his  past  conduct  in  the  cession  of  his  see  to  Hooper  ; 
but  Bishop  Lloyd — who  was,  in  a  sense,  head  of  the 
Nonjurors — seems  to  me  to  have  had  some  reason  to 
complain  that  he  made  it  without  consulting  his  fellow- 
sufferers  ;  and  in  the  painful  little  controversy  which 
ensued  the  fault  was  surely  not,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
altogether  on  the  side  of  Bishop  Lloyd.  Quite  enough, 
however,  has  been  said  about  this  temporary  misunder- 
standing.1 Any  faults  there  may  have  been  on  Ken's 
side  were  but  as  spots  in  the  sun.  Most  deservedly 
has  his  character,  with  its  happy  mixture  of  gentleness 
and  firmness,  of  tenderness  and  boldness,  been  admired 
on  all  sides.  There  is  hardly  a  discordant  note  in  the 
chorus  of  praise  in  which  he  has  been  celebrated  by 
posterity. 

But  it  was  not  so  with  all  his  contemporaries.  Ken 
was  very  far  from  incurring  the  woe  pronounced  against 
those  of  whom  all  men  speak  well.  Bishop  Burnet, 
being  a  partisan  of  quite  a  different  school  both  in  theo- 
logy and  politics,  naturally  writes  in  a  depreciatory  tone 
about  him.  He  was  an  object  of  great  abuse  among 
those  Jacobites  who  thought  he  had  deserted  his  friends 
by  recognising  'a  schismatic'  as  his  successor.  'The 
Jacobites,'  he  writes,  '  at  Bristoll,  fomented  by  those  at 
London,  are  thoroughly  enraged  against  me  for  my 
cession  to  one  whom  all  mankind  besides  themselves  have 

1   Se«  supra,  pp,  II    ">. 


THOMAS  KEN  67 

a  high  esteem  of ;  '  *  and,  again :  '  The  ferment  against 
me  rises  higher  and  higher,  insomuch  that  when  the 
neighbours  at  Bristol  come  hither ' — that  is  to  Naish 
Court,  the  home  of  the  Misses  Kemeys,  where  he  was- 
staying — '  they  manifestly  insult  me.' 2 

But  it  takes  two  parties  to  make  a  quarrel,  and  one 
of  the  parties  Ken  resolutely  refused  to  be.  He  was 
naturally  sharp  tempered,  and,  when  he  was  attacked, 
vindicated  himself  with  vigour — sometimes  with  a  little 
asperity  ;  but  having  done  so,  there  he  let  the  matter 
drop,  and  nothing  could  induce  him  to  resume  it ;  and 
sometimes  when  the  heat  had  passed  away  he  would  cry 
*  peccavi ' — as  in  the  case  of  Dodwell  and  of  Lloyd — in 
a  way  which  necessarily  disarmed  all  further  criticism. 
Controversy  he  abhorred,  and  it  has  been  truly  remarked 
that  '  there  is  nowhere  to  be  found  any  one  controversial 
tract  by  Bishop  Ken;  he  preached  boldly,  especially 
when  King  James's  designs  became  more  apparent,  but 
his  peaceful  spirit  was  unfitted  for  the  strife  of  con- 
troversy.' 3 

The  fact  is,  Ken  was  just  the  reverse  of  some  men 
who  only  seem  to  come  to  the  front  when  a  quarrel 
arises ;  Ken,  on  the  contrary,  was  always  in  evidence 
when  some  plain,  practical  good  was  to  be  done ;  never, 
if  he  could  avoid  it,  when  internal  disputes  arose  among 
Christians.  Was  there  need  of  Christian  intercession  in 
behalf  of  sufferers  cruelly  treated,  as  in  the  case  of  those 
who  were  used  so  barbarously  after  the  suppression  of  the 
Monmouth  rebellion  ?  There  was  Ken  ready  to  rush,  as 
it  were,  into  the  lion's  mouth,  and  to  intercede  for  them, 
not   ineffectually,    with    their    infuriated    and    powerful 

1  Letter    '  To    Mrs.    Hannah    Lloyd '   (that  is,   Bishop    Lloyd).     See 
Plumptre,  ii.  141. 
*  Ibid.  ii.  146. 
3  TAfe  of  T.  Ken,  by  '  A  Layman,'  2nd  edit.,  p.  254. 

f  2 


68  THE  NONJURORS 

oppressors.  Was  there  a  careless,  godless  King  to  be 
admonished,  in  sickness  or  in  health,  living  or  dying,  of 
his  faults  ?  There  was  Ken  ready  to  admonish  him 
faithfully,  without  fear  or  favour.  Was  there  an  in- 
fatuated King  rushing  to  his  own  destruction '?  There 
was  Ken  ready  to  stop  him,  if  possible,  in  his  headlong- 
course.  Was  there  a  libertine,  friend  of  a  powerful 
prince,  to  be  urged  to  do  justice  to  a  poor  girl  whom  he 
had  ruined  ?  There  was  Ken  ready  to  undertake  the 
thankless  task,  and  carrying  it  out  successfully,  though 
with  the  loss  of  the  prince's  favour.  Was  there  a  poor 
man  condemned  to  death  for  actions  of  which  Ken 
utterly  disapproved  ?  Still,  there  he  was,  to  comfort  him 
and  pray  with  him  in  his  dying  hours.  Was  there  urgent 
need  of  the  aid  of  the  charitable  to  stave  off  starvation 
from  sufferers  for  conscience'  sake?  There  was  Ken  in 
the  forefront  of  the  effort,  and  ready  to  justify  boldly  the 
course  which  he  had  taken.  The  kind  of  work,  in  which 
the  broad  principles  of  Christian  faith  and  charity  were 
at  stake,  he  loved  to  take  part  in.  No  one  better  than  he 
could  play  the  part  of  a  St.  John  the  Baptist,  and,  ■  after 
his  example,  constantly  speak  the  truth,  boldly  rebuke 
vice,  and  patiently  suffer  for  the  truth's  sake.'  But  to 
contend  about  disputable  points  was  not  in  accordance 
with  his  nature.  There  was  certainly  no  lack  of  dis- 
putants on  such  points  in  the  times  of  the  Nonjurors ; 
and  it  is  refreshing,  if  only  for  the  sake  of  variety,  to  find 
one  who  shrank  from  joining  their  ranks,  but  who  never 
shrank  from  plain,  practical,  Christian  work,  however 
difficult,  thankless,  or  dangerous  it  might  be ;  and  such 
a  one  was  the  saintly  Thomas  Ken.  He  will  meet  us 
again  in  other  connections  ;  but  considering  how  weU  he 
is  known,  even  to  the  most  superficial  readers  of  Church 
history,   enough  has    been    said    of    him   in   his  capacity 


EOBEKT  FEAMPTON  69 

as   one   of    the    deprived   Fathers ;    and    we   may   now 
turn  to 

Bobert  Frampton  (1622-1708),  who  was  a  Nonjuror  of 
the  type  of  Ken,  but  does  not,  like  Ken,  appear  to  have 
had  any  hesitation  whatever  about  declining  the  oaths. 
Like  Ken,  he  continued,  in  spite  of  his  deprivation,  to 
regard  himself  as  canonical  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  and 
was  ready  to  perform  his  episcopal  functions  whenever 
required ;  and,  as  Dean  Plumptre  frequently  reminds  us, 
he  was  of  all  others  the  prelate  most  after  Ken's  own 
heart,  though,  of  course,  not  so  intimate  with  him  as 
Turner  was.  But  he  was  fifteen  years  older  than  Ken, 
and  this  may  in  part  account  for  the  far  less  active  part 
he  took  in  public  affairs  after  the  Ee volution.  Another 
reason,  indeed,  has  been  given,  and  that  on  very  high 
authority.  '  Some,'  writes  the  contemporary  biographer 
of  Kettle  well,  '  thought  he  [Frampton]  had  too  low  an 
opinion  of  himself ;  and  was,  therefore,  not  bold  and 
active  enough.  He  was  sensible  that  he  wanted  courage, 
but  commended  it  in  Ken  and  others,'  with  more  to  the 
same  effect.1  Now  it  may  seem  presumptuous  to  disagree 
with  the  judgment  of  contemporaries  who  were  in  the 
thick  of  the  fight,  and  who  ought  to  know  better  than  a 
writer  two  hundred  years  later.  But  facts  are  facts ;  and 
the  known  facts  of  Frampton's  life  are  certainly  incom- 
patible with  the  theory  that  he  was  a  timid  man,  who  had 
not  the  courage  of  his  opinions.  Moreover,  we  must 
balance  one  contemporary  against  another  ;  and,  through 
the  enterprise  of  Mr.  T.  Simpson  Evans,  we  happily  have 
an  anonymous  biography  written  by  '  an  intimate  friend 
of  the  Bishop '  who  was  '  in  attendance  on  him  during 
his  last  illness  and  at  his  death,'  and  who  wrote  the 
memoir  only  a  few  years  after  that  death,  '  on  purpose,' 

1  See  Life  of  Kettlewell,  prefixed  to  his  Compleat  Works,  i.  157. 


70  THE   NONJUKORS 

he  says,  '  to  keep  his  glorious  character  fresh  in  my 
mind,  when,  by  age  or  oppression,  other  things  may 
wear  out.' l  It  may  be  objected  that  an  admiring  bio- 
grapher must  be  taken  cum  grano ;  but  one  who  wrote 
so  near  the  time  could  hardly  be  mistaken  about, 
or  safely  misrepresent,  plain  facts ;  and  the  facts  are 
these. 

Robert  Frampton  was  old  enough  at  the  time  of  the 
Great  Kebellion  to  be  obliged  to  take  a  decided  line,  and 
he  did  take  a  very  decided  one.  He  left  Oxford  without 
his  M.A.  degree,  because  he  could  not  take  it  unless  he 
signed  the  Covenant,  which  he  refused.  After  having  for 
a  short  time  earned  his  living  by  tuition,  we  find  him 
fighting  on  the  Royalist  side  at  '  the  engagement  of 
Hambleton  [Halidown  ?]  Hill'  Then  he  received  Holy 
Orders  from  Skinner,  deprived  Bishop  of  Oxford,  at  the 
instance  of  the  well-known  Dr.  Davenant.  His  first 
sermon  was  a  courageous  defence  of  the  Royal  authority 
at  a  time  when  it  was  highly  dangerous  to  utter  such 
sentiments.  He  boldly  adhered  to  the  Liturgy  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Directory  ;  and  when  his  father  died,  and  the 
officiating  minister  refused  to  bury  him  with  the  Church 
Service,  undertook  the  office  himself  and  performed  it  in 
a  flood  of  tears.2  Becoming  a  noted  preacher,  he  was 
frequently  called  upon  to  preach  in  London  ;  and  he  was 
so  outspoken  that  he  would  have  fallen  into  trouble  had 
he  not  been  appointed  chaplain  to  the  factory  of  the 
Turkey  Company  at  Aleppo,  whither  he  set  off  in  1655. 
But  there  was  some  delay  about  his  departure,  and  during 
the  interval  he  continued  preaching  against  the  errors  of 

1  Seo  the  interesting  and  modest  Preface  of  Mr.  Simpson  Evans  to 
The  Life  of  Robot  Frampton,  Bishop  of  Otoueetter,  Deprived  at  a  Nonjuror 
L689i  which  'is  an  exact  reproduction  of  the  manuscript  Memoir  of  Bobwt 
Frampton,'  p.  viii. 

'  Life,  p.  12. 


ROBERT  FRAMPTON  71 

the  times,  until  Mr.  Harvey,  to  whom  he  owed  his  appoint- 
ment, remonstrated  with  him,  saying,  '  What  do  you 
intend  to  do  ?  To  bring  yourself  and  your  friends  into 
trouble  ?  You'l  be  preaching  about  until  you'l  be  hanged 
for  an  application.  Your  ship  is  ready,  repair  to  that ; 
then  you  may  safely  discharge  your  office.' l  He  ministered 
at  Aleppo  for  twelve  years,  making  friends  not  only  with 
Christians  of  all  sorts,  but  also  with  Mussulmans.  He 
returned  to  England  in  1667,  but,  hearing  that  the  plague 
had  broken  out  at  Aleppo  with  great  virulence,  he  returned 
thither  and  fearlessly  ministered  to  the  sufferers,  not 
returning  finally  to  England  until  1670.  In  1673  he  was 
preferred  to  the  deanery,  and  in  1680  to  the  bishopric,  of 
Gloucester.  All  through  his  public  life  he  showed  the 
same  courage  that  Ken  showed,  not  scrupling  to  offend 
Charles  II.  by  preaching  against  the  atheism  and  irreligion 
that  prevailed  at  Court,  nor  James  II.  by  lifting  up  his 
testimony  frequently  against  Eomanism  ;  and,  as  he  was 
one  of  the  most  popular  and  effective  preachers  of  the  day,2 
his  words  carried  weight.  The  living  of  Slimbridge,  in 
his  diocese,  was,  and  still  is,  in  the  gift  of  Magdalen 
College,  Oxford,  and  he  absolutely  refused  to  institute  to 
it  the  nominee  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  president,  thrust 
upon  the  College  by  James  II.  It  was  only  through  the 
impossibility  of  reaching  London  in  time  (he  was  too  late 
by  half  an  hour)  that  he  was  not  one  of  the  bishops 
imprisoned  in  the  Tower;  and  he  so  entirely  identified 
himself  with  their  cause  that  he  desired  to  present  to  the 
King  a  private  petition  to  the  same  effect  as  theirs,  and 
was  only  dissuaded  from  doing  so  by  the  opinion  of 
Sancroft,    his    Metropolitan.     He    not    only   refused   to 

'  Life,  p.  26. 

2  Ibid.  p.  152.    See  Pepys's  Diary,  passim,  for  an  account  cf  Frampton's 
early  preaching. 


72  THE   NONJURORS 

obey  the  King's  order  to  direct  his  clergy  to  read  the 
Declaration  of  Indulgence,  but  actually  forbade  them  to 
do  so. 

These  acts  were  not  the  acts  of  a  timid  man  ;  and  if 
he  kept  in  the  background  after  the  Revolution  it  is  not 
difficult  to  see  his  reasons.  He  was  verging  on  seventy 
when  the  deprivation  actually  took  place,  and  was  eighty- 
six  when  he  died.  The  other  two  who  survived  the  rest 
(Ken  and  Lloyd)  were  much  younger  men,  and  there  is 
no  more  characteristic  symptom  of  declining  years  than  a 
tendency  quieta  non  movere.  '  Dr.  Frampton,  Bishop  of 
Gloucester,'  writes  Hickes,  in  reference  to  the  new  conse- 
crations, '  absolutely  refused  all  correspondence  with  his 
brethren,  from  which  he  desired  to  be  excused,  alleging 
that  he  had  retired  from  all  business,  but  what  related 
to  his  soul,  in  preparing  himself  for  death.' J  But  there 
was  another  reason — Frampton  never  was  a  Nonjuror  of 
the  type  of  Hickes.  So  far  from  regarding  the  Established 
Church  as  in  a  state  of  schism,  he  held,  as  far  as  he 
possibly  could,  communion  with  it.  He  retained,  with 
the  connivance  of  the  Government,  the  poor  living  of 
Standish  (the  net  income  was  only  40/.  a  year)  which  he 
had  held  in  commendam  with  his  bishopric,  officiating  in 
its  parish  church,  as  far  as  his  conscience  would  allow, 
and  leaving  his  curates,  who  had  presumably  taken  the 
oaths,  to  do  what  he  could  not.  He  preached  from  his 
pew,  catechised  the  children,  and  even  said  the  prayers, 
omitting,  of  course,  the  '  characteristics.'  He  was  not. 
in  any  active  sense  of  the  term,  a  Jacobite  ;  and  was 
extremely  annoyed  at  Bishop  Turner's  letter  to  the 
English  King  in  France,  which  committed  all  the  Non- 
juring  prelates  to  James's  interest.  But  in  Bpite  of  this 
he  did   not  escape  the  charge  of  favouring  popery,  and 

M'l  Introduction  to  The  Records  of  the  New  ConMOrattoW. 


KOBEET  FBAMPTON  73 

was,  in  fact,  arrested  and  imprisoned  on  the  absurd  sus- 
picion of  being  concerned  in  a  plot  to  assassinate  King 
"William ;  but  it  was  soon  found  that  he  was  only  con- 
cerned in  the  fund  for  the  relief  of  the  distressed  clergy, 
and  he  was  speedily  released.  He  remained  on  excellent 
terms  with  several  of  the  complying  bishops ;  we  hear 
of  friendly  interviews  between  him  and  Bishops  Tenison 
and  Lloyd  (of  St.  Asaph),  while  Bishop  Compton,  of 
London,  was  his  firm  and  constant  friend  to  the  last.  In 
fact,  he  was  so  favourable  to  the  *  Kevolution  Church  ' 
that  Dodwell  (himself  a  very  moderate  Nonjuror)  wrote 
him  a  wrathful  expostulation  on  the  course  he  was  taking; 
and  Bishop  Lloyd  had  hopes  of  inducing  him  to  comply. 
But  Lloyd  was  quite  mistaken  in  his  man.  Bishop 
Frampton  was  firm  in  his  principles  and  knew  what  he 
meant.  The  oaths  he  never  intended  to  take ;  and  when 
Queen  Anne  offered  to  make  him  Bishop  of  Hereford,  an 
offer  which  he  was  urgently  importuned  to  accept,  he 
replied  that  '  he  could  not  hold  two,  for  that  the  care  of 
one  he  had  found  enough,  and  that  he,  if  he  must  have 
any,  had  rather  have  his  own  than  any,  but,  says  he,  "  I 
can  take  no  new  one  any  more  than  hold  the  old  one,  and 
that  which  put  me  out  when  in  will  keep  me  out  when 
out."  ' x  Holding  this  view,  it  may  seem  strange  that  he 
could  be  so  friendly  with  those  who  were  not  '  put  out.' 
But,  as  his  biographer  intimates,2  his  experience  in  the 
East  had  tended  to  widen  his  sympathies  ;  for,  having 
consorted  there  with  men  of  all  sorts  of  opinions,  he  was 
prepared  to  think  more  lightly  than  other  Nonjurors  of 
differences  between  men  who  after  all  meant  to  be  English 
Churchmen. 

The  two  remaining  bishops  were  '  Confessors  in  will, 
but  not  in  deed,'  being  called  to  their  rest  before  the 
1  Life,  p.  224.  2  Ibid.  p.  207. 


74  THE  NONJURORS 

sentence  of  deprivation  came  into  execution;  but  their 
trumpet  gave  no  uncertain  sound,  and  they  rank  virtually 
among  the  deprived  Fathers. 

Of  William  Thomas  (1613-89),  Bishop  of  Worcester, 
we  have  happily  a  full  account,  written  by  a  descendant 
for  Nash's  '  Collection  for  the  History  of  Worcestershire  ;  ' 
and  what  we  learn  from  other  sources  shows  that  this 
was  not  merely  the  partial  account  of  a  relative.  He 
was  a  Welshman  by  extraction,  but  was  born  at  Bristol  ; 
on  the  early  death  of  his  father  he  was  brought  up  by  his 
grandfather  at  Carmarthen,  and  was  educated  at  the 
Grammar  School  in  that  place  up  to  the  time  of  his  going 
to  Oxford,  where  he  became  fellow  and  tutor  of  Jesus 
College.  Like  Frampton,  who  was  born  in  the  same 
year,  he  was  thus  old  enough  to  show  his  colours  at  the 
time  of  the  Kebellion,  and  he  took  the  same  line  that 
Frampton  did.  He  had  received  Holy  Orders,  and  been 
presented  to  the  living  of  Laugharne,  in  Carmarthenshire. 
But  in  order  to  keep  this  (and  perhaps  other)  preferments 
during  the  troubles  he  would  have  been  obliged  to  take 
the  Covenant.  This  he  refused  to  do,  and  was  conse- 
quently ejected.  Like  Frampton,  he  earned  his  livelihood 
by  tuition  until  the  Kestoration,  when  he  was  reinstated 
in  his  living.  In  1G61  he  was  presented  to  the  rectory  of 
Lampeter-Velfrey,1  in  Pembrokeshire,  by  Lord  Chancellor 
Hyde,  and  made  chaplain  to  the  Duke  of  York,  who 
henceforth  became  his  steady  patron,  and  it  was  evidently 
a  great  grief  to  Thomas  to  be  obliged  by  conscience  to 
oppose  him.  In  1665  he  was  promoted,  again  through 
the  influence  of  the  duke  and  the  chancellor,  to  the 
deanery  of  Worcester,  in  which  capacity  he  won  the 
esteem  of  the  county  gentry,  especially  Sir  John  Poking- 
ton,  who, 

1  '  Uanbeder  in  the  Valley  '  (Nash). 


WILLIAM  THOMAS  75 

that  he  might  enjoy  more  of  his  company,  presented  him  to  the 
rectory  of  Hampton  in  1670.  He  quitted  Langharne  and  re- 
moved his  family  to  Hampton ;  here  he  enjoyed  an  easy  and 
pleasant  retirement,  and  was  often  heard  to  say  that  this  was 
the  pleasantest  part  of  his  life,  and  that  here  he  had  more  quiet 
and  satisfaction  within  himself  than  when  he  was  afterwards  in 
the  highest  order  of  the  Church  ;  here  he  found  time  to  search 
into  antiquity,  and  enlarge  his  mind,  and  enrich  it  with  fruitful 
knowledge,1 

the  deanery  apparently  not  weighing  very  heavily  upon 
him.  In  1677  he  became  Bishop  of  St.  Davids,  holding, 
as  was  frequently  the  evil  custom  of  the  time,  the  deanery 
of  Worcester  in  commendam.  This  was  a  happy  appoint- 
ment, for  he  was  a  Welshman  himself,  and,  unlike  most 
Welsh  bishops  of  the  period,  '  thoroughly  identified  himself 
with  the  interests  of  his  diocese.' 2  He  was  '  very  accept- 
able to  the  gentry  and  clergy  of  the  diocese ;  he  had  been 
bred  among  them,  spake  their  language,  and  been  a  fellow- 
sufferer  with  many  of  them  in  the  late  troublesome 
times  ;  ....  he  preached  frequently  in  several  parts  of 
the  diocese  in  the  language  of  the  country,  and  was  very 
instrumental  in  promoting  the  translation  of  the  Bible 
into  Welsh.'3  In  1683  he  was  translated  to  Worcester, 
where  he  was  hospitable  to  the  rich  and  charitable  to  the 
poor,  almost  to  lavishness,  and  to  the  impoverishment  of 
his  own  family.  When  the  Seven  Bishops  were  sent  to 
the  Tower, 

This  was  a  great  grief  to  our  Bishop,  not  that  he  was  con- 
cerned for  any  fault  or  misbehaviour  in  his  brethren,  or  for  the 
calamity  that  had  befallen  them,  for  he  often  wished  that  he 
had  been  with  them,  to  bear  his  testimony  for  so  good  a  cause, 
and  to  have  a  share  with  them  in  their  honourable  sufferings, 
but  he  was  troubled  to  think  on  that  impending  storm  which  he 
foresaw  might  fall  upon  the  Church.4 

1  Life  (Nash).  2  Bevan's  Diocesan  History  of  St.  Davids,  p.  196. 

3  Nash,  ut  supra.  *  Ibid. 


76  THE  NONJURORS 

This  is  borne  out  by  an  interesting  letter,  dated  '  Wor- 
cester, June  3,  1688,'  and  written  by  Thomas,  apparently 
to  Sancroft's  chaplain.     It  runs  : 

Worthy  Sir, — I  pray  present  my  dutifully  devoted  observance 
to  my  Lord's  Grace  of  Canterbury.  I  pray  God  direct  and  prosper 
his  steerage  of  the  Church  of  England  in  these  tempestuous 
times.  In  a  cordial  compliance  with  his  Grace's  pious  conduct 
in  the  late  Petition  presented  to  the  King  I  have  retained  in 
my  custody  the  pacquet  of  the  printed  copyes  of  the  Eoyal 
Declaration  of  Indulgence  which  I  could  not  transmit  to  the 
clergy  of  my  diocese  committed  to  my  pastoral  charge  (salvd 
conscientid,  salvo  honore  Ecclcsim  Anglicance).  It  is  a  piercing, 
wounding  affliction  to  me  to  incur  his  Majesty's  displeasure,  to 
be  misinterpreted  guilty  of  the  least  degree  of  disloyalty  or  in- 
gratitude (which  my  soul  abhorrs)  towards  my  inexpressibly 
obliging  master  and  benefactor,  patron  and  soveraigne,  whose 
special  mandate  I  have  received  in  the  concerne  of  the  Indul- 
gence imparted  to  me  by  the  Lord  Bishop  of  St.  David's  ; 
wherein  nothing  could  divert  or  slacken  my  intire  submission 
and  utmost  conformity,  but  my  dread  of  the  indignation  of  the 
King  of  Kings,  to  whom,  being  neare  the  brinke  of  the  grave,  I 
must  shortly  give  an  account  of  my  managing  of  the  Episcopal 
station  (wherein  God  be  merciful  to  me),  I  apprehend  it  a  duty 
incumbent  on  me,  indispensibly  strict,  to  be  a  skreene  to  my 
clergy,  to  endeavour  to  secure  them  from  sinnes  and  perils, 
not  to  lay  traines  for  either,  by  recommending  the  publication  of 
that  to  their  parishioners  wherein  my  own  judgment  is  abun- 
dantly dissatisfy'd  and  theirs  also.  I  resolve  by  God's  gracious 
assistance  to  suffer  the  greatest  temporal  evil  of  distresse  rather 
than  teach  or  promote  the  least  spiritual  evil  of  guilt.1 

This  letter  prepares  us  for  the  course  which  Bishop 
Thomas  took  at  the  Revolution.  It  was  hard  enough 
work  for  him  to  disobey  the  King  to  whom  he  owed  so 
much,  and  there  is  evidently  a  personal  feeling  that  he 
might  appear  ungrateful ;  to  renounce  that  king,  and  swear 
allegiance  to  another,  was  what  he  could  never  dream  of 
doing.     '  If  my  heart,'  he  said,  'do  not  deceive  me,  and 

1  Gutch'a  Collectanea  Curiata,  i.  B89, 


WILLIAM   THOMAS  77 

God's  grace  do  not  fail  me,  I  think  I  could  suffer  at  a 
stake  rather  than  take  this  oath.'  If  there  had  been  any 
doubt  in  his  mind  (which  there  was  not),  there  was  one 
at  hand  ready  to  dispel  it.  The  bishop  and  the  dean, 
William  Thomas  and  George  Hickes,  stood  shoulder  to 
shoulder  in  the  crisis,  and  Hickes  took  the  bishop's  dying 
declaration  of  unshaken  loyalty,  made  only  three  days 
before  his  death.  The  two  are  said  to  have  '  stood  almost 
alone  in  their  refusal  in  that  diocese.' l  There  were  at 
least  twelve  others,  but  this  is  a  small  number  considering 
the  example  set  b)'  the  two  highest  dignitaries.  The 
dean  had  a  very  high  opinion  of  his  bishop,  and  calls 
him  '  that  excellent  bishop  worthy  of  everlasting  me- 
mory.'2 The  end  came  rather  suddenly  at  last,  on 
June  25,  1689.  The  bishop  evidently  did  not  expect  it 
quite  so  soon,  for  '  he  prepared  himself  for  leaving  his 
palace  and  vacating  his  see,  and  agreed  with  Mr.  Martin, 
Vicar  of  Wormley,  to  come  and  live  with  him,  and  wrote 
to  Stillingfleet,  telling  he  would  use  all  his  interest  that  he 
might  succeed  him.' 3  But  he  also  made  full  prepara- 
tions for  the  other  alternative. 

According  to  his  own  appointment  he  was  buried  in  the 
Cloisters,  being  used  to  say  that  the  church  was  for  the  living, 
and  not  for  the  dead ;  his  funeral  was  ordered  by  himself,  as 
many  old  men  going  before  his  corpse  cloath'd  in  black  as  he 
was  years  old.  He  ordered  this  inscription  :  '  Depositum 
Gulielmi  Thomas,  S.T.P.,  olim  Decani  Wigorniensis  indigni, 
postea    Episcopi    Menevensis    indignioris,    tandem     Episcopi 

1  Lathbury's  History  of  the  Nonjurors,  p.  52,  quoted  from  Kettlewell's 
Life,  85. 

2  Preface  to  the  Collection  of  Dean  Hickes's  Letters,  vol.  i. 

s  Nash,  ut  supra.  This  reference  to  Stillingfleet,  who,  of  course,  did 
succeed  him,  shows  that,  had  Thomas  lived,  he  would  probably  have  been 
a  Nonjuror  of  the  type  of  Ken,  not  of  his  friend  and  coadjutor,  Hickes ; 
and  other  circumstances  of  his  life  point  to  the  same  conclusion — 
e.g.  his  interest  in  and  munificence  to  the  French  Protestants. 


78  THE  NONJURORS 

Wigorniensis  indignissimi,  mentis  tamen  Christi  resurrection  is 
ad  vitam  aeternam  candidati.' 

But  on  the  marble  monument  erected  to  his  memory  in 
the  cathedral,  Dean  Hickes  added  : 

Sanctissimus  et  doctissimus  Praesul,  pietatis  erga  Deum, 
ergaRegem  fidelitatis,  charitatis  erga  Proximos  illustre  exemplum 
expiravit  An.  Redemptionis  MDCLXXXIX.  iEtatis,  LXXVI. 
Junii  XXV.  et  moribundus  hoc  quicquid  est  epitaphi  pro 
modestia  sua  tumulo  inscribi  jussit. 

The  last  of  the  prelates  to  be  noticed  in  this  chapter 
is  John  Lake  (1624-89),  Bishop  of  Chichester,  the 
chief  characteristic  of  whom,  all  his  life  through,  was 
a  most  undaunted  courage,  both  moral  and  physical.  '  I 
thank  God,'  he  once  said,  '  I  never  knew  what  fear  was, 
when  I  was  once  satisfied  of  the  goodness  of  my  cause,' 
and  he  never  did.  He  was  a  Yorkshireman  by  birth  and 
education,  being  born  at  Halifax  and  educated  there  until 
his  admission  at  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  at  what 
was  even  then  the  early  age  of  thirteen.  When  he  had 
taken  his  B.A.  degree,  while  he  was  still  a  mere  lad,  ■  his 
college  being  made  a  prison  for  the  royal  party,  he  was 
kept  a  prisoner  there,'  refusing,  as  a  Royalist,  to  take  the 
Covenant.  He  managed,  however,  to  make  his  escape, 
and  fled  from  Cambridge  to  Oxford,  then  the  head- 
quarters of  the  Royalists.  He  joined  the  King's  army  as 
a  volunteer,  and  served  in  it  for  four  years  with  con- 
spicuous bravery,  especially  at  the  defence  of  Basing 
House  and  at  Wallingford  Castle,  which  was  one  of  the 
last  garrisons  that  held  out  for  King  Charles  I.  His 
military  instincts  adhered  to  him  through  life,  and  some- 
times served  him  in  good  stead.  In  1(547  he  received 
Holy  Orders,  probably  from  Skinner,  the  ejected  Bishop 
of  Oxford,  and  preached  his  first  sermon  at  his  native 
place,  Halifax.     With  characteristic  courage  and  decisive- 


JOHN   LAKE  79 

ness  he  refused  the  '  Engagement,'  which  several  excellent 
Churchmen  took,1  and  had  to  flee  from  Halifax  to  Old- 
ham, where  for  a  year  or  two  he  contrived  to  exercise  his 
ministry.  We  then  lose  sight  of  him  until  the  Kestora- 
tion,  when  he  was  presented  to  the  vicarage  of  Leeds  ; 
but  the  Puritans  were  so  opposed  to  the  appointment 
that  at  his  induction  soldiers  had  to  be  called  in  to  keep 
the  peace — a  not  inappropriate  incident,  considering  that 
it  was  a  soldier- priest  who  was  being  inducted.  In  1663 
he  was  collated  by  the  Bishop  of  London  (Dr.  Gilbert 
Sheldon)  to  the  living  of  St.  Botolph's,  Bishopsgate ;  and 
in  1667  was  also  made  Prebendary  of  Holborn,  in 
St.  Paul's  Cathedral ;  in  this  capacity  he  formed  an  inti- 
mate friendship  with  Sancroft,  then  Dean  of  St.  Paul's. 
In  1669  he  was  appointed  to  the  living  of  Prestwich,  in 
Lancashire,  and  in  1671  to  the  prebend  of  Fridaythorpe, 
in  York  Minster ;  and  in  1680  was  installed  Archdeacon 
of  Cleveland.  His  connection  with  York  Minster  brought 
out,  but  in  a  very  proper  way,  his  warlike  propensities. 
There  was  a  bad  custom  of  people  lounging  about  in  the 
nave  of  the  minster  while  divine  service  was  going  on  in 
the  choir ;  this  kindled  the  wrath  of  the  intrepid  preben- 
dary, who  went  into  the  nave  and  pulled  off  the  hats  of 
all  who  were  wearing  them.  A  still  worse  custom  was 
that  of  the  city  apprentice  holding  a  revel  in  the 
cathedral  on  Shrove  Tuesday.  Lake's  determined  oppo- 
sition to  this  raised  a  riot ;  but  he  defied  the  rabble, 
declaring  that  he  had  faced  death  in  the  field  too  often 
to  dread  martyrdom.  He  was  advised  to  retire  to  his 
country  living,  but  he  manfully  stayed  at  his  post  until 
he  succeeded  in  putting  a  stop  to  the  desecration  of  the 
minster.  In  1682  he  was  nominated  by  the  Earl  of 
Derby  to  the  bishopric  of  Sodor  and  Man,  and  '  sacrificed 
1  E.g.  Eobert  Sanderson. 


80  THE  NONJURORS 

a  rich  prebend  for  a  poor  bishopric;'  and  in  1684, 
through  the  influence  of  Bishop  Turner  with  the  Duke 
of  York,  was  translated  to  Bristol.1  Here  again  his 
military  experience  stood  him  in  stead.  The  Monmouth 
Rebellion,  the  scene  of  which  was  the  West  of  England, 
naturally  disturbed  Bristol ;  and  its  gallant  bishop  has- 
tened from  London,  where  he  was  attending  to  Parlia- 
mentary duties,  to  keep  order  in  his  cathedral  city.  This 
greatly  pleased  King  James,  and  led  (through  the  in- 
strumentality of  Sancroft)  to  Lake's  final  promotion  to 
the  bishopric  of  Chichester  in  1685.  He  was  a  most 
active  and  popular  bishop  in  that  diocese,  was  one  of  the 
Seven  who  were  imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  and  one  of 
the  Eight  who  refused  the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  William 
and  Mary.  Strong  influence  was  used  to  induce  him  to 
take  the  oaths,  but  he  persistently  refused,  and  on  being 
told  that,  if  he  persisted,  his  suspension  would  take  place 
on  August  1,  and  his  deprivation  on  the  following  Feb- 
ruary 1,  he  replied  in  words  which  have  become  almost 
classical,  that  '  He  considered  that  the  day  of  death  and  of 
judgment  are  as  certain  as  the  1st  of  August  and  the  1st 
of  February,  and  acted  accordingly.'  '  The  day  of  death  ' 
was  very  near  at  hand.  On  August  27,  1689,  feeling  that 
the  end  was  approaching,  he  dictated  to  his  chaplain, 
liobert  Jenkin,  whom  he  had  lately  collated  to  the  pre- 
centorship  of  the  cathedral,  and  who  afterwards  became 
master  of  his  own  college,  St.  John's,  Cambridge,  the 
following  remarkable  '  Profession  '  : 

Being  called  by  a  sick  and  I  think  a  dying  bed,  and  the 
good  hand  of  God  upon  me  in  it,  to  take  the  last  and  best 
viaticum,  the  sacrament  of  my  dear  Lord's  body  and  blood,  I  take 
myself  obliged  to  make  this  short  recognition  and  profession. 

That  whereas  1  was  baptized  into  the  religion  of  the  Church 

1  Defence  of  I  bttton,  by  It.  Jenkin,  p.  '.». 


JOHN  LAKE  81 

of  England,  and  sucked  it  in  with  my  milk,  I  have  constantly 
adhered  to  it  through  the  whole  course  of  my  life,  and  now,  if 
it  be  the  will  of  God,  shall  dye  in  it;  and  I  had  resolved, 
through  God's  grace  assisting  me,  to  have  dyed  so,  though  at  a 
stake. 

And  whereas  that  religion  of  the  Church  of  England  taught 
me  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  and  passive  obedience,  which 
I  have  accordingly  inculcated  upon  others,  and  which  I  took  to 
be  the  distinguishing  character  of  the  Church  of  England,  I  ad- 
here no  less  firmly  and  steadfastly  to  that,  and  in  consequence 
of  it  have  incurred  a  suspension  from  the  exercise  of  my  office 
and  expected  a  deprivation.  I  find  in  so  doing  much  inward 
satisfaction,  and  if  the  Oath  had  been  tendered  at  the  peril  of 
my  life,  I  could  only  have  obeyed  by  suffering. 

I  desire  you,  my  worthy  friends  and  brethren,  to  bear 
witness  of  this  upon  occasion,  and  to  believe  it  as  the  words  of 
a  dying  man,  and  who  is  now  engaged  in  the  most  sacred  and 
solemn  act  of  conversing  with  God  in  this  world,  and  may,  for 
ought  he  knows  to  the  contrary,  appear  with  these  very  words 
in  his  mouth  at  the  dreadful  tribunal.  '  Manu  propria  sub- 
scripsi.' 

Johannes  Cicesteensis. 

When  the  Communion  was  over  [Dr.  Jenkin  goes  on  to  tell 
us]  he  called  to  Mr.  Powell,  his  Secretary,  and  ordered  him  to 
make  an  Act  of  it  [the  Profession].  The  Lord  Bishop  of 
Norwich  1  coming  to  visit  him  soon  after,  his  Lordship  pray'd 
him  to  look  over  the  Paper,  and  then  desired  the  Dean  of 
Worcester  2  to  carry  it  with  him  to  Lambeth,  and  discoursed  of 
it  to  my  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely,3  who  that  evening  made  him  a 
visit;  so  that  nothing,  perhaps,  in  all  its  circumstances  was 
ever  more  solemnly  and  deliberately  done.4 

Within  three  days  (August  30,  1689)  Bishop  Lake  was 
called  to  his  rest ;  and  on  September  3  was  buried  in  his 
old  church,  St.  Botolph's,  Bishopsgate. 

1  Dr.  Lloyd.  •  Dr.  Hickes.  3  Dr.  Turner. 

4  '  A  Defense  of  the  Profession  which  the  Eight  Eeverend  Father  in 
God,  John,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Chichester,  made  upon  his  Death-bed 
concerning  Passive  Obedience  and  the  New  Oaths;  together  with  an 
Account  of  some  Passages  in  his  Lordship's  Life,'  1690. 


82  THE  NONJURORS 

Dr.  Jenkin  adds  this  very  pertinent  postscript  to  the 
'  Defense ' : 

It  is  very  observable  that  the  only  two  Bishops  who  have 
dyed  since  the  refusal  of  the  Oath,  have  declared,  when  they 
had  now  done  with  this  world,  and  had  no  other  expectations 
but  of  death  and  judgment,  they  refused  it  only  upon  a  principle 
of  Conscience.  And  all  who  have  any  conscience  or  charity 
themselves,  or  the  least  respect  for  the  Church  of  England, 
must  give  great  regard  to  the  dying  words  of  two  such  Bishops, 
in  whom  their  worst  enemies  can  find  nothing  to  blame,  but 
that  which  shall  be  to  their  eternal  honour,  that  all  the  tempta- 
tions and  inducements,  which  probably  can  happen  in  any 
case,  could  never  prevail  with  them  to  take  an  oath  against 
their  consciences. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  about  the  deprived  Fathers 
individually.  One  general  remark  may  be  added  in  con- 
clusion. The  estimation  in  which  they  were  deservedly- 
held  arose  rather  from  their  moral  than  from  their  intel- 
lectual qualities.  They  lived  in  times  when  there  were 
intellectual  giants  in  the  land  ;  but  though  none  of  them 
were  deficient,  none  of  them  attained  to  the  gigantic 
stature  of  the  great  Caroline  divines,  such  as  Barrow, 
South,  Bramhall,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Sanderson,  Cosin,  Ham- 
mond, and  Thorndike.  The  one  who  approached  nearest 
the  standard  was  perhaps  Bishop  Ken.  On  this  point 
Lord  Macaulay  says  truly,  '  Ken  both  in  intellectual 
and  moral  qualities  ranked  highest  among  the  Nonjuring 
prelates  ; ' '  but  even  Ken,  to  judge  by  his  literary  achieve- 
ments, was  not  the  equal  of  the  earlier  divines  intel- 
lectually. Neither  can  he,  and  still  less  can  any  of  the 
rest,  bear  comparison  in  this  regard  with  many  of  the 
other  Nonjurors  who  will  come  before  us — such,  for 
instance,  as  Hickes,  Leslie,  Collier,  Brett,  Spinckes,  Law. 
Dodwell,   Baker,    and   many   besides.      But    the    moral 

1  History  of  England,  ch.  xiv.  (vol.  ii.  p.  103,  in  the  edition  in  I  nit 

published  1873). 


<W 


THE  DEPEIVED   FATHERS  83 

courage  of  the  deprived  Fathers  as  leaders  of  the  van, 
their  self-sacrifice,  their  quiet  demeanour  (exceptis  exci- 
piendis)  under  very  trying  circumstances,  their  blameless 
and  exemplary  lives  compelled  admiration.  Justice,  but 
not  more  than  justice,  has  been  done  to  them  by  posterity. 
Whether  equal  justice  has  been  done  to  those  who 
certainly  followed  their  lead  remains  to  be  seen. 


84  THE  NONJURORS 


CHAPTER   III 

BISHOPS   OF   THE   NEW   CONSECRATION 

It  was  a  most  serious  step  which  the  deprived  bishops 
took  when  they  determined  to  consecrate  others  to  take 
their  places  when  they  were  gone.  The  reasons  which 
seem  to  have  weighed  with  them  have  been  noticed  in 
the  opening  chapter,  and  we  have  now  to  consider  the 
results  of  their  action.  The  measures  which  were  adopted 
have  been  described  in  the  fullest  detail  and  the  most 
vivid  manner  by  one  who  was  very  nearly  concerned  ;  and, 
as  it  would  be  impossible  to  improve  upon  this  description, 
it  shall  here  be  inserted  at  length.  It  is  Dr.  Hickes's 
introduction  to  '  The  Records  of  the  New  Consecrations,' 
and  we  probably  owe  its  preservation,  as  we  owe  so 
much  valuable  information  concerning  the  Nonjurors, 
to  Dr.  Richard  Rawlinson.1     It  runs  thus  : 

After  the  deprivation  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
his  brethren,  on  the  first  of  February,  1689  [sic],  they  began  to 
think  of  continuing  their  succession  by  new  consecrations,  and 
often  discoursed  of  it ;  but  without  taking  any  particular  resolu- 
tion till  after  the  consecrations  of  the  intruders  into  their  sees ; 
which  happened  on  Whit  Sunday,  31  of  May,  1G91.  Then  the 
deprived  Archbishop  and  Bishops  in  and  about  London  resolved 
to  continue  their  succession,  and  in  order  thereunto  to  write  to 

1  Personally,  my  thanks  are  due  to  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Fish,  rector  of 
St.  Margaret  Pattens,  who  also  showed  me  an  original  copy  of  the 
of  the  New  Consecrations,  at  Sion  College,  and  another  belonging  to  Kenneth 
Gibbs,  Esq.  Thirty  copies  of  the  RdOOrd  Ac.  were  distributed  by  Dr. 
Rawlinson,  who  had  them  privately  printed.  He  gave  a  bound  copy  to  the 
Bodleian  Library,  where  it  still  is. 


THE  NEW  CONSECEATIONS  85 

the  king  about  it.  In  their  discourses  on  this  matter  the  Bishop 
of  Ely  acquainted  the  Archbishop  and  his  brethren  that  there 
were  some  letters  in  the  library  of  St.  John's  College  in  Cam- 
bridge, which  had  passed  between  Sir  Edward  Hyde,  afterwards 
Earl  of  Clarendon  and  Lord  Chancellor,  and  Dr.  Barwick, 
afterwards  Dean  of  St.  Paul's  not  long  before  the  Eestauration, 
concerning  the  continuation  of  the  succession  of  the  bishops  of 
the  Church  of  England,  then  reduced  to  about  seven.     This 

obliged   them   to   write   to  Mr.  B ,]   fellow  of   St.  John's 

College,  to  desire  him  to  send  up  these  letters  ;  which  accord- 
ingly were  sent.  It  brought  them  also  a  resolution  to  impart 
the  secret  to  my  lord  Clarendon,  who  had  been  his  father's 
secretary  in  the  correspondence  with  Dr.  Barwick.  It  appears 
from  these  letters,  which  were  but  part  of  what  passed  on  the 
occasion,  or  from  the  information  of  my  lord  Clarendon,  or 
from  both,  that  difficulties  arose  at  that  time  about  the  manner 
of  continuing  the  succession  of  bishops ;  because  either  there 
wanted  deans  and  chapters,  to  whom  the  conge  d'elire  with  a 
letter  missive  should  be  sent,  or  because  the  deans  and  pre- 
bendaries of  any  church,  then  surviving  in  a  sufficient  number, 
could  not  legally  hold  chapters  out  of  their  respective  churches. 
On  this  account  it  was  thought  the  best  way,  because  the  only 
way  practicable,  to  ordain  Suffragan  Bishops  according  to  the 
statute  of  Henry  VIII.  But  soon  after  this  resolution  was 
taken  the  king  was  called  home  by  an  unforeseen  providence, 
which  prevented  the  execution. 

Upon  this  information  the  archbishop  and  bishops  resolved 
upon  the  same  method  for  the  continuation  of  their  succession, 
because  though  there  were  legal  deans  and  chapters  in  most 
ehurches,  yet  they  were  not  such  to  whom  his  majesty  could 
direct  his  Conges  d'Elire,  or  who  would  have  received  them.  On 
this  resolution  the  deprived  archbishop  and  bishops  determined 
to  write  to  the  King  to  desire  his  Majesty's  consent  in  the  way 
directed  by  the  statute,  for  consecrating  new  bishops.  My  lord 
Clarendon  was  accordingly  desired  to  write  to  my  lord  Melfort, 
the  King's  secretary,  about  this  affair ;  which  he  did,  and  soon 
received  from  him  his  majestie's  most  gracious  answer  to  this 
purpose  :  that  he  was  well  pleased  with  the  design,  and  would 
readily  concur  with  it.     After  the  receipt  of   this  answer  my 

1  Probably  Hilkiah  Bedford,  who  published  a  translation  of  the  Latin 
Life  of  John  Barwick  by  Peter  Barwick. 


86  THE  NONJURORS 

lord  Clarendon  wrote  him  a  second  letter  by  the  dictation  of  the 
archbishop  and  bishops  in  pursuance  of  the  same  design  accord- 
ing to  the  statute  aforesaid.  But  to  this  no  answer  was  returned 
for  a  long  time.  This  gave  occasion  to  suspect  that  his  majestie 
had  been  persuaded  from  consenting  to  the  continuation  of  the 
succession  of  our  bishops  by  such  as  desired  nothing  more  than 
to  see  it  interrupted.  Which  made  the  good  fathers  resolve 
rather  to  do  this  important  matter  without  his  majestie's  con- 
sent than  not  at  all.  However,  they  determined  to  renew  their 
application  to  the  King,  but  whether  before  they  had  sent  a 
third  letter  or  after  it,  I  cannot  well  remember,  they  received 
an  answer  from  my  lord  Melfort  signifying  his  majestie's  great 
desire  to  have  the  new  consecrations  finished,  and  requiring 
them  in  order  thereunto,  to  send  some  person  over,  with  whom 
his  majestie  could  confer  about  this  matter,  and  send  a  list  of 
the  deprived  clergy  by  him.  The  person  of  whom  they  made 
choice  [Dr.  Hickes]  set  out  from  London,  May  the  nineteenth, 
1693,  and  went  by  way  of  Holland  ;  which  by  reason  of  many 
difficulties  and  disappointments  made  it  six  weekes  ere  he 
arrived  at  St.  Germains.  He  came  thither  at  night  as  his 
majesty  was  concluding  his  supper,  after  which  he  kissed  his 
hand  ;  and  having  received  his  majestie's  directions,  whom  only 
ho  should  see  there,  he  was  conducted  to  a  lodging  prepared  for 
him.  Next  night  at  the  same  hour  he  was  sent  for  to  the  King, 
who  in  the  first  place  was  pleased  to  make  an  apology  for 
having  so  long  delayed  his  answer  to  my  lord  Clarendon's 
second  letter,  above-mentioned — viz.  that  before  he  proceeded 
further  in  this  matter,  he  thought  himself  obliged  fully  to  satisfy 
his  own  conscience,  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  his  own  part  in  it ; 
which,  said  he,  I  did  first  by  consulting  of  those  I  thought  the 
best  casuists  of  the  place  where  I  am — viz.  the  archbishop  of 
Paris  and  the  bishop  of  Meaux,  and  they  by  laying  the  case 
before  the  Pope.  The  resolution  of  the  two  bishops,  says 
he,  I  have  here;  and  they  both  agree  in  this  determination 
though  consulted  separately  :  that  the  Church  of  England  being 
established  by  the  laws  of  the  Kingdom,  1  am  under  no  obliga- 
tion of  conscience  to  act  against  it,  but  obliged  to  maintain  and 
defend  it,  as  long  as  these  laws  are  in  force.  And  then  his 
majesty  put  the  papers  containing  the  said  ease  and  those 
bishops'  resolution  of  it  into  the  doctor's  hands,  desiring  him  to 
road  them  ;  which  he  did,  and  found  them  as  his  majesty  ivpre- 
>'iil<-d.      His  majesty  said    he   had   not  yet  received    the  pope's 


THE  NEW   CONSECEATIONS  87 

answer,  but  did  not  doubt  he  should  before  the  doctor  returned, 
which  accordingly  happened ;  and  the  doctor  saw  it  before  his 
departure :  and  it  was  to  the  same  effect  with  that  of  the  two 
bishops.  The  King  shewed  these  three  determinations  to  my 
lord  Fanshaw,  about  two  years  after  who  went  over  about  some 
business,  and  after  his  return  assured  the  doctor  that  he  had 
both  seen  and  read  them.  After  the  doctor  had  that  night  read 
the  said  two  papers,  the  King  proceeded  to  tell  him  that  his 
majesty  had  on  all  occasions  '  justified  the  Church  of  England, 
since  the  Kevolution,  declaring  that  the  true  Church  of  England 
remained  in  that  part  of  the  clergy  and  people,  which  adhered 
to  her  doctrines  and  suffered  for  them  :  and  that,  Sir,'  said  he, 
'  is  the  Church  of  England  which  I  will  maintain  and  defend, 
and  the  succession  of  whose  bishops  I  desire  may  be  continued, 
and  when  it  shall  please  God  to  restore  me  or  mine,  we  may 
meet  with  such  a  Church  of  England,  and  such  bishops  :  and  I 
desire  for  that  end  that  the  new  consecrations  may  be  made  as 
soon  as  conveniently  they  can  after  your  return.'  At  that  and 
other  audiences  his  majesty  expressed  his  esteem  of  the  deprived 
bishops  and  clergy,  and  of  the  laity  that  suffered  with  them,  in 
the  most  tender  and  affectionate  manner  even  with  tears  in  his 
eyes,  and  he  declared  that  he  was  very  sensible  that  the  greatest 
part  of  the  complying  clergy  still  loved  him,  and  had  fallen  only 
through  their  infirmity,  and  very  few  through  disaffection  and 
malice  to  him. 

The  doctor  had  his  '  conge '  of  his  majesty  the  latter  end  of 
July  and  arrived  at  Rotterdam  on  the  seventh  of  August,  where 
he  waited  all  that  month  and  the  next  to  return  in  a  fleet  of 
merchants  under  the  convoy  of  the  same  men  of  war  that  con- 
voyed the  yatcht  [sic]  in  which  the  prince  of  Orange  returned, 
but  when  he  should  have  gone  on  board,  he  was  seized  with  an 
ague  and  fever  which  detained  him  near  four  months  longer, 
viz. :  till  January  the  twenty-fourth  on  which  day  he  went  from 
Rotterdam,  and  going  on  board  the  packet  boat  on  the  twenty- 
sixth  arrived  at  Harwich  on  the  twenty-ninth.  Where  he 
escaped  being  examined  by  one  Mackay  a  Scotchman  placed 
there  to  examine  passengers,  by  sitting  next  to  a  foreign  minister 
in  the  boat  which  brought  the  passengers  on  shore.  After  three 
days  stay  at  Harwich  he  came  to  London  on  the  fourth  of 
February  and  on  the  feast  of  S.  Matthias  the  twenty-fourth  of 
the  same  month  the  consecrations  were  solemnly  performed 
according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England  by  Dr.  William 


88  THE  NONJUEORS 

Lloyd,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  Dr.  Francis  Turner,  Bishop  of  Ely, 
and  Dr.  Thomas  White,  bishop  of  Peterborough,  at  the  bishop 
of  Peterborough's  lodgings,  at  the  Rev.  Mr.  William  Giffard's 
house *  at  Southgate  in  Middlesex  :  Dr.  Kenn,  bishop  of  Bath 
and  Wells  giving  his  consent.  Here  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Dr. 
Frampton,  bishop  of  Gloucester  absolutely  refused  all  corre- 
spondence with  his  brethren,  alleging  that  he  had  retired  from 
all  business,  but  what  related  to  his  soul,  in  preparing  himself 
for  death ;  and  that  Dr.  William  Sancroft,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  dyed  while  the  doctor  lay  ill  at  Rotterdam,  but  he 
joined  in  everything  relating  hereto,  while  he  lived,  and  par- 
ticularly recommended  to  the  King  one  of  the  two  persons  to 
be  consecrated,  as  the  bishop  of  Norwich  did  the  other.  All 
the  time  of  his  Grace's  retirement  in  Suffolk  he  corresponded 
with  the  bishop  of  Norwich  notwithstanding  that  he  had  given 
him  a  deputation  in  due  form  in  the  Latin  tongue,  impowering 
him  to  act  in  all  cases  relating  to  Church  affairs  in  his  stead 
which  yet  the  bishop  seldom  made  use  of,  without  first  acquaint- 
ing him  with  it,  and  receiving  his  Grace's  directions  thereupon. 

George  Hickes. 

Looked  at  from  the  modern  point  of  view  this  in- 
teresting and  important  document  suggests  several  reflec- 
tions. 

(1)  The  great  importance  attached  to  the  consent  of 
one  who  was  after  all  a  layman,  and  not  even  a  lay 
member  of  the  Church  of  England,  may  seem  to  savour 
of  Erastianism,  the  very  last  thing  which  one  associates 
with  the  Nonjurors.  But  it  will  be  observed  that  here,  as 
elsewhere,  the  Church  is  put  above  the  State.  '  The  good 
fathers  resolve  rather  to  do  this  important  matter  without 

1  The  name  of  'William  (liffard,  R.  of  Great  Bradley,'  occurs  in 
all  lists  of  Nonjurors,  and  in  a  MS.  boob  given  to  the  Library  of  St.  John's 
College,  Cambridge,   by  the  Rev.  J.  II.    Lupton,  and  kindly  lent  to  me  by 

Professor  J.  E.  B.  Mayor,  I  find,  among  the  aooonnl  ol  the  characters  ol 
various  Nonjurors,  the  following  extract  from  the  Daily  Pott,  on  Friday, 
April   9,    1731,    headed   'Mr.  CilTard's  Cliaraetei  '  :    'On    W.dm    day   night 

(vis.  April  7, 1781)  died  the  Rev.  Mr.  William  Gilford,  who  had  borne  th< 

shocks  of  fortune  for  several  year  VI  i tli  i  insular  patience  and  OOUTaj  •  .  II' 
died  in  a  very  advanced  age.' 


THE  NEW  CONSECEATIONS  89 

his  majestie's  consent  than  not  at  all.'  Nevertheless,  it 
was  most  important,  indeed  essential,  to  have  that  consent 
if  everything  was  to  be  done  as  they  wished.  If  the  Non- 
jurors were  the  true  Church  of  England,  then  of  course 
their  bishops  must  be  appointed  as  the  Church  of  England 
appoints  bishops.  In  other  words,  the  old  constitutional 
doctrine  of  the  Eoyal  Supremacy  must  be  recognised,  and 
none  the  less  so  because  it  was  at  present  a  shadowy 
supremacy  far  away,  and  not  a  substantial  supremacy  on 
the  spot.  When  '  the  King  should  enjoy  his  own  again,' 
as  they  all  hoped  he  would  do,  endless  complications 
would  arise  if  he  had  not  given  his  sanction  to  the  new 
consecrations  by  sending  the  conge  d'elire.  Moreover,  the 
Act  of  Henry  VIII.,  under  which  the  consecrations  were 
supposed  to  be  made,  laid  great  stress  upon  the  part 
which  the  King  was  to  take.  '  Two  honest  and  discreet 
spiritual  persons,  being  learned  and  of  good  conversation,' 
were  to  be  presented  by  the  archbishop  or  bishop  '  dis- 
posed to  have  any  suffragan'  to  the  King  'by  writing 
under  their  seals,  making  humble  request  to  his  majesty 
to  give  to  one  such  of  the  said  two  persons  as  shall  please 
his  majesty  such  title,  name,  style,  and  dignity  of  bishop 
of  such  of  the  sees  specified,  as  the  King's  highness  shall 
think  most  convenient  for  the  same,'1  and  there  are  several 
other  regulations  in  which  the  King  plays  a  chief  part. 
It  will  be  seen  that  they  could  not  comply  with  the  Act 
literally  by  giving  the  King  the  choice  of  two,  probably 
for  lack  of  material — all  the  more  reason  why  they  should 
be  very  particular  about  complying  with  it  where  they 
could. 

(2)  An  English  Churchman's  choler  is  inclined  to  rise 
when  he  hears  that  the  Pope  and  two  bishops  in  the 
Eoman  obedience  were  consulted  in  the  matter.     It  was 

1  See  Phillimore's  Ecclesiastical  Law,  p.  78. 


90  THE  NONJUEOES 

like  the  infatuated  policy  of  King  James  to  refer  pointedly 
to  his  having  done  so.  Of  course,  as  a  conscientious 
Roman  Catholic  he  could  not  act  otherwise ;  but  one 
would  have  thought  that  past  experience  would  have 
taught  him  that  the  less  said  about  the  matter  the  better. 
(3)  The  clandestine  nature  of  the  whole  transaction 
was  repellent  to  the  frankness  and  openness  of  the 
English  character.  Perhaps  at  this  time  of  day  we  are 
hardly  in  a  position  to  judge  how  far  all  this  secrecy  was 
necessary ;  but  certainly  if  it  could  have  been  avoided  it 
would  have  been  very  desirable.  The  Nonjurors  them- 
selves, except  those  few  who  had  been  let  into  the  secret, 
do  not  appear  to  have  known  what  took  place.  Robert 
Nelson  lived  close  to  Hickes  in  Ormond  Street,  and  on 
the  most  intimate  terms  of  friendship  with  him,  without 
knowing  that  '  My  neighbour  the  Dean '  was  a  bishop. 
Thomas  Hearne  certainly  knew  nothing  about  the  new 
consecrations  in  1711 — that  is,  seventeen  years  after  they 
had  taken  place — and  probably  not  for  several  years  later. 
There  may  be,  perhaps,  nothing  actually  contrary  to 
Church  principles  in  the  concealment.  This  very  question 
is  asked  and  grappled  with  in  one  of  the  appendices  to 
Lee's  '  Life  of  Kettlewell,'  and  also  in  other  writings  of 
the  Nonjurors ; '  but  Englishmen  do  not  like  mystery  ; 
and  it  is  clear  that,  both  at  the  time  and  ever  since,  the 
mystery  in  which  the  consecrations  were  shrouded  has 
tended  to  raise  a  strong  prejudice  against  bhem. 

(4)  The  awkward  questions  arise,  Was  the  Act  of 
Henry  VIII.  under  which  the  first  consecrations  took 
place  really  intended  for  any  such  purpose  as  that  for 
which  it  was  used?  And  if  it  was,  had  the  suffragan  an; 
power  beyond  what  he  received  by  commission  from  bis 

1  In  one  of  the  Ms  honks  in  the  Library  <>f  St.  John's,  Cambridge, 
already  referred  to,  there  are  several  letter   on  the   ubjeot. 


GEOEGE  HICKES  91 

diocesan?  And  when  the  diocesan  died  did  not  the 
suffragan's  commission  die  with  him?  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  Dr.  Christopher  Wordsworth,  who  revived  this 
system  of  so-called  suffragans  by  putting  into  force  the 
Act  of  Henry  VIII.  in  our  own  time,  foresaw  this  difficulty 
some  years  before  the  revival ;  indeed,  some  years  before 
he  was  a  bishop  himself.1  Of  course  the  Nonjurors  were 
too  well-read  men  not  to  perceive  the  difficulty ;  and  they 
grappled  with  it  bravely — whether  successfully  or  not  is 
another  question.  Indeed,  the  original  idea  was  soon 
tacitly  dropped.  The  first  two  were  the  only  bishops 
who  were  consecrated  as  suffragans  under  Henry's  Act. 
Thetford  and  Ipswich  were  carefully  chosen  as  towns  in 
the  diocese  of  Norwich,  and  the  Bishops  of  Thetford  and 
Ipswich  were  supposed  to  be  suffragans  of  the  Bishop  of 
Norwich ;  but  none  of  the  later  bishops  had  any  titular 
sees  attached  to  them  ;  they  were  bishops  at  large  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  It  is  only  fair  to  add  that  two  of  the 
very  ablest  of  the  Nonjurors — Dr.  Hickes  in  his  '  Con- 
stitution of  the  Catholic  Church,'  and  Charles  Leslie  in 
his  '  Case  of  the  Eegale  and  Pontificate  ' — dealt  with  the 
whole  subject  of  the  new  consecrations  most  learnedly 
and  exhaustively ;  but  they  had  a  hard  task  which  taxed 
even  their  abilities. 

But  when  we  turn  from  the  question  of  consecration 
to  the  two  individuals  who  were  first  consecrated,  it 
must  be  owned  that  they  were  more  than  worthy  of  the 
doubtful  elevation  to  which  they  were  advanced. 

George  Hickes  (1642-1715)  was,  in  point  of  abilities 
and  attainments,  quite  equal  to  the  great  divines  of  the 
Caroline  era.  He  was  fast  rising  to  the  highest  ranks  of 
his  profession  when  the  Eevolution  occurred,  and  put  a 
stop  to  any  further  advancement.     It  was  by  the  sheer 

1  See  Life  of  Bishop  Christopher  Wordsworth,  p.  223  (First  Edition). 


92  THE  NONJURORS 

force  of  his  own  talents  that  he  rose,  for  he  had  no  par- 
ticular advantages  of  birth  or  education,  and  no  powerful 
friends,  except  those  of  his  own  making.  He  was  the  son 
of  a  large  Yorkshire  farmer—  perhaps,  one  should  say,  a 
gentleman  farmer — and  was  educated  first  at  Thirsk  and 
then  at  the  Grammar  School  of  North  Allerton,  the 
master  of  which,  Thomas  Smelt,  throughout  the  Common- 
wealth instilled  monarchical  principles  into  his  pupils, 
much  in  the  same  way  as  Dr.  Busby  did  on  a  far  larger 
scale  at  Westminster.  As  George  Hickes's  mother  was 
the  daughter  of  a  clergyman,  it  is  possible  that  the  same 
seeds  were  sown  at  home  ;  at  any  rate,  he  proved  very 
receptive  of  them,  and  they  bore  ample  fruit  in  later  life. 
At  the  age  of  sixteen  he  was  sent  to  his  brother,  John 
Hickes,  who  was  nine  years  his  senior,  and  who  had 
imbibed  quite  opposite  views.  It  was  intended  to  make 
a  merchant  of  him,  but  he  showed  so  much  intellectual 
promise  that  it  was  determined  to  send  him  to  college, 
and  accordingly  he  went  to  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 

The  Puritan  reign  was  nearly,  but  not  quite,  over,  and 
George  Hickes,  an  ardent  Royalist  and  Churchman,  was 
involved  in  trouble  with  the  authorities,  and  had  to  leave 
the  college.  Upon  the  Restoration  he  returned  to  Oxford, 
not  to  St.  John's,  but  as  '  poor  scholar '  or  servitor  to 
one  of  the  restored  Fellows  at  Magdalen  College,  and  from 
thence  took  his  degree  of  B.A.  Then  he  migrated  to 
Magdalen  Hall,  and  in  1664  was  elected  to  a  Yorkshire 
fellowship  at  Lincoln  College,  and  for  seven  years  was 
what  would  now  be  called  a  college  tutor.  In  1675  he 
became  rector  of  St.  Ebbe's,  Oxford,  and  in  the  same 
year  chaplain  to  the  Duke  of  Lauderdale,  having  been 
satisfied  by  his  friend,  Bishop  Fell  (who  was  also  Dean  of 
Christ  Church),  that  the  charges  of  immorality  against 
the  duke  were  unfounded,  arising  only  from  party  malice. 


GEOEGE  HICKES  93 

In  1680  he  was  made  prebendary  of  "Worcester,  and 
in  the  same  year  vicar  of  Allhallows  Barking,  which 
preferment  he  owed  to  Archbishop  Sancroft.  In  1681 
he  became  a  Eoyal  chaplain,  and  in  1683  Dean  of 
Worcester.  In  1684  he  declined  the  bishopric  of  Bristol, 
though  it  was  intimated  to  him  that  he  might  retain  his 
deanery  in  commendam.  In  1685  the  Rector  of  Lincoln 
College,  Dr.  Marshall,  who  was  also  Dean  of  Gloucester, 
and  a  man  of  considerable  eminence,  died,  and  Hearne 
tells  us  that  '  Bishop  Fell,  who  knew  Dr.  Hicks's  worth, 
and  had  a  true  value  for  Men  of  Learning,  labour'd  all  he 
could  to  have  him  Eector  of  Lincoln  ;  but  the  Fellows, 
who  knew  he  would  have  been  for  keeping  up  Discipline, 
preferr'd  a  Person  of  a  quite  Different  Temper.' 1  This 
seems  a  rather  unnecessary  fling  at  the  fellows  and  the 
successful  candidate  for  the  rectorship  (Dr.  Fitzherbert 
Adams),  but  it  is  borne  out  by  Wood,  who  gives  us  also 
the  following  additional  particulars  : 

1685,  May  2,  S[unday].  Fitzherbert  Adams  chose  rector  of 
Line.  Coll.  against  Dr.  [George]  Hicks.  He  had  9  voices  and 
Dr.  Hicks  but  3.  Occasioned  by  John  Eadcliff  and  [Edward] 
Hopkins 2  that  they  might  have  a  governor  that  they  might 
govern.  Eadcliff  represented  him  to  be  a  turbulent  man,  and 
that  if  he  should  be  rector  they  should  never  be  at  quiet.3 

In  1686  Hickes  resigned  the  living  of  Allhallows 
Barking,  and  accepted  that  of  Alvechurch,  to  hold  in 
commendam  with  the  deanery.  Dean  Hickes,  though 
frequently  accused  of  a  leaning  to  popery,  was,  in  point 
of  fact,  from  first  to  last  a  staunch  Protestant,  in  the 
literal  sense  of  the  word — that  is,  he  was  always  ready  to 
'  protest '  in  the  strongest  terms  he  could  command,  and 

1  Hearne's  Collections  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  i.  322. 

-  Curiously  enough  this  '  Edward  Hopkins '  afterwards  became  a  Non- 
juror. 

1  Wood's  Life  and  Times  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  iii.  142. 


94  THE  NONJURORS 

these  were  very  strong,  both  against  papal  errors  in 
doctrine  and  papal  encroachments  in  practice.  All 
through  his  life  he  was  a  very  malleus  Romancnsium, 
writing  several  most  telling  pieces  against  them.  He 
also  saw  perfectly  well  what  his  Eoyal  master  was  aiming 
at,  and  determined  to  resist  him.  In  1687  the  Bishop  of 
Worcester  was  seriously  ill,  and  not  expected  to  recover. 
Dean  Hickes,  like  a  war-horse  sniffing  the  battle  from 
afar,  prepared  himself  and  others  for  the  attempt  which 
he  felt  sure  King  James  would  make,  in  case  of  a  vacancy, 
to  foist  one  of  his  Roman  or  Romanising  friends  into  the 
see.  He  wrote  '  to  assure  the  prebendaries  that  in  such 
a  case  he  would  first  write  to  the  King,  asking  him  to 
recall  any  conge  d'elire  for  such  a  person,  and  then,  if 
necessary,  endure  any  penalty  rather  than  summon  the 
chapter  to  elect/  Happily,  the  bishop  recovered,  so 
the  case  did  not  occur.  But  the  dean  rushed  into  the 
fray — though,  of  course,  he  had  no  call  to  do  so — when 
the  infatuated  King  issued  his  Second  Declaration  of 
Indulgence  the  same  year.  He  was  equally  staunch  in 
supporting  James  in  his  adversity  as  he  had  been  in 
resisting  him  in  his  prosperity,  and  at  the  Revolution 
became  one  of  the  most  uncompromising  of  Jacobites 
and  Nonjurors.  He  was  first  suspended,  and  then 
deprived  in  the  usual  course,  but  was  allowed  to  remain 
unmolested  at  the  deanery  for  three  months  after  his 
deprivation — that  is,  from  the  beginning  of  February  to 
the  beginning  of  May  1G91.  Then,  on  hearing  that  his 
successor  had  been  appointed  (Talbot,  who  rose  in  time 
to  the  Palatine  see  of  Durham),  he  took  the  bold  course 
of  affixing  with  his  own  hand  to  the  entrance-gate  of  the 
choir  of  bis  cathedral  a  protest,  an  extract  from  which 
may  be  here  inserted  : 

Whereas   the   oflicc,   place   ami    dignity   of    Dean    of    this 


GEOEGE  HICKES  95 

Cathedral  Church  was  given  and  presented  unto  me  for  a  free- 
hold during  my  natural  life  by  Letters  Patent  under  the  Broad 
Seal  of  King  Charles  II. : 

Whereas  I  am  given  to  understand  that  my  right  to  the  said 
office  and  dignity  has  of  late  been  called  in  question,  and  that 
one  Mr.  Talbot,  M.A.,  prefers  a  title  to  the  same : 

I  do  hereby  publicly  protest  and  declare  that  I  do  claim  a 
legal  right  and  title  to  the  said  office  and  dignity  of  Dean 
against  the  said  Mr.  Talbot  and  all  other  persons  pretending 
title  to  the  same — and  so  forth.1 

This  was  regarded  as  an  affront  to  Government,  and, 
in  order  to  prevent  arrest,  Hickes  was  obliged  to  make  his 
escape,  and  to  lie  for  some  time  in  concealment  and  dis- 
guise. He  found  a  refuge,  of  all  places  in  the  world,  in 
the  country  parsonage  at  Ambrosden,  or  Amersden,  of  Mr. 
White  Kennett,  the  man  who,  next  to  Bishop  Burnet, 
was  perhaps  most  obnoxious  to  the  Nonjurors,  and  who 
certainly  wrote  and  spoke  most  severely  of  them.  This 
bringing  together  of  the  extremest  of  Nonjurors  and  the 
extremest  of  anti-Non jurors  seemed  like  a  cat  and  dog 
arrangement,  which  must  infallibly  result  in  an  immediate 
and  violent  quarrel.  But,  strange  to  say,  this  was  not 
the  case.  For  a  time  the  plan  answered  admirably,  and 
brought  about  most  important  results,  quite  apart  from 
controversial  divinity  and  politics.  Perhaps  at  the  time 
of  the  residence  of  the  two  men  under  the  same  roof  they 
were  not  quite  so  wide  apart  as  they  afterwards  became  ; 
White  Kennett  certainly  drifted  further  and  further  away 
from  his  old  moorings  (he  had  been  bred  up  a  Tory  and 
a  High  Churchman)  ;  Hickes  probably  grew  stricter  and 

1  The  document  will  be  found,  printed  in  full,  in  an  Appendix  to  the 
Life  and  Compleat  Works  of  Kettlewell.  The  protest,  addressed  to  '  Dr. 
John  Jephcot,  Sub-Dean  of  the  Catbedral,  &c.'  is  all  in  manuscript  among 
the  Kawlinson  MSS.  (D  373)  in  the  Bodleian  Library.  It  is  'corrected 
from  an  Original  under  the  Dean's  own  hand  and  seal,  this  2nd  of  July, 
1731.— Witness,  Wm.  Bedford.' 


96  THE  NONJURORS 

stricter,  both  in  his  theological  and  his  political  prin- 
ciples, as  his  years  advanced.  Still,  at  the  time  when  the 
two  men  lived  together  at  Ambrosden — that  is,  during 
part  of  the  last  decade  of  the  seventeenth  century — the 
differences  between  them  were  quite  sufficient  to  make  the 
harmony  almost  phenomenal. 

How  it  was  managed  had  best  be  told  in  the  words  of 
Kennett's  biographer : 

Having  contracted  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Hicks, 
he  [Kennett]  received  him  freely  into  his  vicarage-house  there 
[Amersden]  ;  and  finding  that  by  his  condition  of  suffering  for 
the  cause  of  King  James,  his  head  and  thoughts  were  too  much 
determined  to  Politics ;  by  which  he  would  be  apt  to  disturb 
the  world  and  expose  himself,  Mr.  Kennet,  to  divert  him  from 
that  mischief  (as  well  as  for  other  reasons)  desired  his  instruc- 
tion in  the  Saxon  and  Septentrional  Tongues,  fee. 

While  Dr.  Hickes  was  thus  pleased  by  the  Country  Vicar, 
it  gave  the  latter  the  opportunity  to  interest  the  Doctor  to  look 
more  upon  those  studies,  to  review  his  Saxon  and  Islandic  [sic1' 
Grammar  &c.  It  was  upon  this  frequent  Discourse  and  Impor- 
tunity of  Mr.  Kennett,  that  Dr.  Hickes,  then  and  there,  laid  the 
foundation  of  that  noble  work  which  he  brought  to  perfection  in 
about  7  years  after.1 

But  the  Doctor,  being  then  under  a  legal  Incapacity  (which, 
however,  was  soon  taken  off  without  his  Trouble  or  charge  by 
the  generosity  of  the  Lord  Somers),2  he  wore  a  lay-habit,  and 
affected  to  be  unknown,  till  a  Fellow  of  a  College  in  Oxford 
coming  over,  and  calling  the  Doctor  by  his  name,  he  thought 
there  was  a  danger  in  staying,  and  so  he  went  off  Immediately 
to  some  more  obscure  retreat. :l 

1  That  is  The  TJiesaurus,  &c,  described  in  the  chapter  on  '  Nonjurors' 
Literature,'  infra,  p.  414. 

2  In  1G'J9  Lord  Soniers,  the  Whig  Lord  Chancellor,  procured  for  him  :i 
nolle  jnoseatii,  which  stayed  nil  farther  proceedings  against  him,  in  con- 
sideration of  the  great  services  he  had  rendered  to  literature  on  non-contro- 
versial subjects.  Lord  Somers  is  said  to  have  interposed  in  his  behalf  in 
gratitude  for  having  been  made  counsel  for  the  Seven  Bishops. 

3  Life  of  Bislmji  White  Kennett,  1780,  published  anonymously,  but 
known  to  have  been  written  by  the  Bev.  William  Newton,  vicar  of  Gilling- 
liam.  Dorset. 


GEOEGE  HICKES  97 

Dr.  Hickes,  having  stayed  for  a  while  in  London, 
found  shelter  under  the  hospitable  roof  of  Lady  Pakington 
at  Westwood,  in  Worcestershire,  then  in  a  small  cottage 
on  Bagshot  Heath,  then  in  Gloucester  Green,  Oxford, 
then  for  many  years  in  Great  Ormond  Street,  London, 
where  he  died  on  December  15,  1715,  and  was  buried  by 
his  friend  Spinckes  in  the  churchyard  of  St.  Margaret, 
Westminster.1  He  regularly  officiated  at  one  of  the  most 
noted  of  the  Nonjuring  Oratories,  as  will  appear  in  a 
later  chapter.2  He  had  married  a  kindred  spirit  in  1679, 
Frances,  daughter  of  Charles  Mallory  who  had  suffered 
for  his  loyalty  during  '  the  troubles '  ;  with  her  he  lived 
most  happily  until  her  death,  which  occurred  just  a  year 
before  his  own.  They  had  no  family.  He  had  two 
brothers :  Ealph,  to  whom  no  doubt  Hearne  refers  when 
he  says,  '  Dr.  Hicks  has  a  Brother  a  Physitian,  who  was 
first  a  Presbyterian,  and  afterwards  converted  to  ye  Ch.  of 
Engl,  by  his  Bro.  and  now  practises  Physick  in  London,' 3 
and  John  Hickes,  of  whom  a  little  more  must  be  said. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  two  brothers,  John 
and  George  Hickes,  should  have  suffered  for  conscience' 
sake,  the  one  death,  the  other  the  loss  of  all  his  worldly 
prospects,  on  quite  opposite  sides.  John  Hickes  held 
under  the  Commonwealth  the  perpetual  curacy  of  Saltash, 
in  Cornwall,  from  which  he  was  ejected  by  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  in  1662.  He  became  a  champion  of  Non- 
conformity, joined  the  Monmouth  Kebellion  in  1685,  and 
was  executed  at  Taunton  in  the  autumn  of  that  year. 
He  wrote  to  his  wife    from  prison  : — '  Monday  last  my 

1  The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  Burial  Register  of  St.  Margaret's, 
Westminster :  '  1715,  Dec.  18.— The  Rev.  (or  Rt.  Rev.)  George  Hicks  [sic], 
D.D.,  Dean  of  Worcester,  which  Deanery  he  lost  by  refusing  to  take  the 
Oaths  at  the  Revolution ;  he  was  consecrated  Bp.  Suffragan  of  Thetford  by 
Dr.  Lloyd,  the  deprived  Bp.  of  Norwich.' 

2  See  infra,  p.  283.  3  Collections  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  i.  2(30. 


93  THE  NONJURORS 

brother  went  to  London  to  try  what  could  be  done  for 
me  ;  what  the  success  will  be,  I  know  not.'  The  dean 
offered  100Z.  to  Lord  Shannon  to  procure  a  pardon  for  his 
brother  by  the  King's  personal  favour.  But  he  was  in  a 
most  embarrassing  position ;  natural  affection  led  him 
one  way,  his  ideas  of  justice  another.  Holding  as  he  did 
the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  in  its  strictest  and  most 
uncompromising  form,  he  no  doubt  believed  that  his 
brother  had  justly  forfeited  his  life  by  his  glaring  act  of 
rebellion.  John  Hickes  was  quite  as  unbending  in  his 
opinions  in  an  opposite  direction ;  the  two  had  probably 
long  been  alienated,  and  time  had  done  its  work.  All 
this  should  be  taken  into  account  in  reading  the  following 
letter,  written  only  two  days  after  John  Hickes 's  most 
sad  death : — 

Worcester:  Oct.  17,  1685. 
Much  Honoured  Sir, — At  my  return  to  the  Deanery,  I  found 
your  very  kind  letter  for  which  I  return  you  my  most  hearty 
thanks,  and  will  ever  acknowledge  your  great  charity,  and 
respects  towards  my  late  wretched  brother,  which  shall  remain  a 
debt  upon  my  account  as  long  as  I  live.  I  must  also  entreat  you 
to  return  my  most  humble  duty  and  thankes  to  my  good  Lord 
Bishop  l  for  his  eminent  condescension  and  charity  towards  him 
in  praying  with  him,  and  for  him,  and  for  Buffering  so  unworthy 
a  body  to  be  buried  in  Glassenbury  Church.  I  take  this  last 
great  respect  of  my  Lord's  to  be  done  to  myself,  and  desire  in  a 
particular  manner  to  be  thankful  for  it.  I  am  glad  he  made 
such  professions  of  his  loyalty,  and  gave  the  people  such  good 
exhortations  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  their  lawfull  sovereign 
and  to  detest  all  manner  of  rebellion,  but  am  very  sorry  that 
he  persisted  in  justifying  his  nonconformity:  this  part  of  his 
last  behaviour  fills  my  heart  with  grief,  though  1  was  prepared 
to  expect  it,  as  knowing  very  well  how  ignorant  he  was  of  the 
true  nature  of  Church  communion,  and  how  much  he  was  pre- 
possessed with  false  notions  and  principles  in  matters  relating 
to  church  discipline  and  government.     I  humbly  entreat  yon  i<> 

1   Dr.  Ken,  whose  Christian  kindness  towards  tin-   pool  DlSMIlteX  is  wrv 

characteristic 


GEOKGE  HICKES  99 

send  on  the  paper  he  delivered  to  you,  you  may  direct  it  to  me 
at  the  Deanery  in  Worcester,  and  I  also  pray  you  to  let  me 
know,  whether  he  left  any  charge,  or  message  to  his  children 
in  word  or  writeing,  that  they  should  live  in  the  communion  of 
our  church  and  whether  he  desired,  and  received  the  holy  sacra- 
ment, and  if  not,  whether  he  refused,  or  it  was  refused  to  him, 
as  might  justly  have  been  done  to  a  man  persisting  in  schisme. 
I  also  desire  to  know,  whether  his  body  was  delivered  whole  to 
his  friends,  and  if  so,  whether  it  was  don  by  order  from  my 
Lord  Chief  Justice ;  I  wrote  to  his  Lordship  to  beg  so  much 
mercy  of  him,  and  if  he  granted  my  petition,  it  is  fit  I  should 
know  it,  and  give  him  thankes.  I  should  also  be  glad  to  know 
what  my  Lord  said  to  him  at  his  tryall,  and  condemnation,  and 
whether  he  said  anything  to  the  people  in  justification  of  his 
nonconformity  at  the  time  of  his  execution,  and  if  he  acknow- 
ledged his  punishment  to  be  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  for 
his  sin  of  rebellion.  There  is  a  worthy  gentleman  of  the  Church 
of  Welles,  to  whome  I  beseech  you  give  my  humble  service  and 
particular  respects,  I  mean  Dr.  Creighton,1  and  to  the  good 
Deane,2  if  he  be  there. 

I  doubt  my  curiosity  hath  made  me  too  troublesome  to  you, 
but  I  assure  you,  you  may  in  requiteall  command  me  any 
service,  for  I  am  in  all  sincerity,  dear  Sir, 

Your  most  obliged,  affect,  and  humble  servant, 

George  Hickes.3 

The  tone  of  this  letter  may  seem,  as  Mr.  Macray  says, 
somewhat  hard,  but  with  Hickes  the  cause  of  the  Church, 
in  its  minutest  details,  was  the  cause  of  Christ ;  and  '  he 
that  loveth  father  or  mother ' — much  more  brother — '  more 
than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me.' 

1  Son  of  a  former  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells.  He  was  precentor  of 
Wells  for  no  less  than  sixty  years,  1674-1734. 

-  Dr.  Balph  Bathurst,  who  was  also  President  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford. 
He  was  a  strong  Royalist,  and  in  the  time  of  'the  troubles  '  had  frequently 
gone  from  Oxford  to  Launton  to  assist  Bishop  Skinner  in  his  secret  ordina- 
tions there.     He  would  be  a  man  after  Dean  Hickes's  heart. 

3  The  letter  is  addressed,  '  For  the  Reverend  Mr.  Robert  Eyre,  Chaplain 
to  my  Lord  Bishop  of  Welles,  at  the  pallace  in  Welles,  Somersets.'  The 
original  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library.  A  copy  of  it  was  sent  by  the  Rev.  W. 
D.  Macray  to  The  English  Historical  Review,  and  was  published  in  that 
periodical,  in  October  1887,  p.  752. 

h  2 


100  THE  NONJURORS 

Hickes  was  not  really  an  unfeeling,  but  a  very  warm- 
hearted man ;  few  men  had  more  friends  who  loved  and 
reverenced  him,  and  whom  he  loved  with  all  the  ardour  of 
an  enthusiastic  temperament;  but  he  loved  his  Church 
better,  and  in  its  interests  would  sacrifice  the  closest  of 
natural  ties.  He  carried  the  same  principles  and  temper 
with  him  into  the  camp  of  the  Nonjurors,  and  his  motto 
always  was  '  No  surrender.'  An  interesting  correspon- 
dence took  place  between  him  and  Bishop  Ken  at  the 
commencement  of  the  eighteenth  century,  which  was 
begun  by  Ken  under  the  impression  that  Hickes  would 
1  concur  with  him  in  hearty  desires  for  closing  the  rupture 
with  the  Established  Church.'  Ken's  letter  is  written 
in  a  truly  Christian  tone,  of  course : '  but,  holding  the 
principles  he  did,  I  do  not  see  how  Hickes  could  possibly 
have  accepted  Ken's  proposals.  At  any  rate  he  did  not ; 
but  wrote  a  reply  which  drew  from  Ken  another  letter, 
evidently  written  in  an  irascible  frame  of  mind  like  that 
in  which  the  good  man  wrote  to  Bishop  Lloyd  ; '-'  but,  as 
usual,  he  struggled  against  his  irascibility  and  overcame 
it.     He  concludes  : 

You  have  been  more  than  once  severe  upon  me.  I  leave 
you  at  your  liberty  to  dissent  from  me,  and  if  you  will  not 
indulge  me  the  like  liberty  to  dissent  from  you,  I  must  take  it, 
though  without  any  breach  of  friendship  on  my  part.  God  keep 
us  in  his  most  holy  fear.    Your  most  affectionate  friend  and  Br. 

Tho.  B.  &  W.3 

That  they  should  continue  to  '  dissent '  was  inevitable. 
Not  only  were  they  men  of  very  different  temperaments,  but 
they  started  from  different  premisses ;  Ken  regarded  the 
separation  from  the  National  Church  as  purely  persona] 

1  See  the  letter  in  full  in  Plumptre'a  Life  of  Kin,  ii.  108  '.».  A  MS. 
copy  of  Hickes's  answer,  which  is  of  great  length,  is  in  the  Library  of 
St.  John's,  Cambridge. 

-  Bee  sujini,  p.  ii,  CO.  '  Bee  Plumptre,  ii.  110-1. 


GEOEGE  HICKES  101 

and  purely  temporary;  Hickes  as  one  of  principle  and 
final,  until  a  distinct  recantation  should  be  made.  Ken 
belonged  to  the  extreme  right  of  one  section  of  the 
Nonjurors,  Hickes  to  the  extreme  left  of  the  other.  How 
could  two  such  men  agree  unless  they  '  agreed  to  differ '  ? 

How  you  estimate  Hickes  just  depends  upon  the 
end  of  the  telescope  from  which  you  contemplate  him. 
Look  at  him  from  one  end  and  he  will  perhaps  appear 
rather  unduly  magnified ;  look  at  him  from  the  other 
and  he  will  appear  unduly  belittled.  To  many  Nonjurors 
he  was  the  brave  and  consistent  champion  of  their  cause, 
who  maintained  definite  and  intelligible  principles,  from 
which  no  earthly  power  could  induce  him  to  swerve  one 
inch  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left.  '  Nothing,'  com- 
plains Mr.  Noble,  '  could  teach  him  moderation.' l  No  ! 
and  nothing  would,  if  he  had  lived  to  this  day ;  for  he 
thought  moderation  was  only  another  word  for  trimming. 
All  through  he  was  probably  the  most  influential  man 
among  the  Nonjurors,  converting  more  to  that  little  com- 
munion than  any  other  man ;  and  after  the  death  of 
Bishop  Lloyd  in  1709,  he  was  not  only  their  virtual,  but 
their  actual  and  nominal  head,  so  that  they  were  some- 
times called  '  Hickesites,'  and  their  communion  '  the  com- 
munion of  Dr.  Hickes.' 

There  was  another  reason  for  his  supremacy  which  is 
well  pointed  out  by  a  modern  writer  :  '  He  was  the  last 
of  the  great  divines  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  the 
last  of  that  generation  of  Nonjurors  who  had  already 
gained  position  and  distinction  before  the  Church  was 
rent  asunder  by  the  Ee volution,  and  who  were  known  and 
valued  in  a  larger  world  than  that  narrow  space  in  which 
the  Nonjurors  were  compelled  to  move.' 2 

1  Granger's  Biographical  History  of  England,  continued  by  Noble,  i.  120. 
•  Undercurrents  of  Church  Life  in  tlie  Seventeenth  Century,  p.  36. 


102  THE  NONJURORS 

Hence  he  was  sometimes  called  by  his  party  '  the  good 
Father  Hickcs.' '  In  169G,  feeling  how  uncertain  life  is, 
and  desiring  that  there  might  be  no  mistake  about  the 
principles  which  uniformly  guided  him,  he  wrote  '  A 
Declaration  concerning  the  Faith  and  Religion  in  which 
he  lived  and  intended  to  die,'  which,  considering  the 
supreme  importance  of  the  man  from  the  point  of  view 
of  this  work,  deserves  to  be  quoted  at  some  length.  No 
one,  I  think,  can  read  it  without  perceiving  that  it  palpi- 
tates with  the  deepest  emotions  of  the  writer,  and  that 
he  would  have  been  quite  ready  to  go  to  the  stake  rather 
than  act  inconsistently  with  the  principles  he  here 
enunciates. 

I  profess  [he  writes]  and  declare  the  Church  of  England  as 
it  was  governed  and  administered  by  true  and  lawful  and  right- 
ful Bishops  before  the  Revolution  to  have  been  a  true  and  sound 
part  of  the  Catholick  Church  ;  and  I  testify  my  unalterable 
adherence  to  all  the  doctrines  of  it  contained  in  the  Thirty  Nine 
Articles,  in  opposition  to  the  corrupt  and  dangerous  practice  of 
the  Roman  Church  and  other  dangerous  doctrines  and  practices  ; 
and  this  I  do  to  vindicate  myself  and  my  suffering  brethren 
from  the  opinion  which  the  common  people  and  other  ignorant 
and  inconsiderate  persons  have  taken  up  of  us  because  we  have 
withdrawn  ourselves  from  the  public  assemblies  and  worship  in 
the  parochial  churches. 

I  profess  my  unalterable  adherence  to  the  deprived  bishops, 
and  their  canonical  successors  and  colleagues. 

I  am  fully  persuaded  and  declare  that  the  Church  of  England 
now  consists  in  the  deprived  Bishops,  so  called,  and  that  faith- 
ful remnant  which  adheres  to  them,  and  that  the  other  Arch- 
bishops and  Bishops,  and  the  great  majority  adhering  to  them, 
are  guilty  of  a  great  schism  to  be  lamented  by  all  good 
Christians. 

I  believe  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  as  taught  in  the 
Eomilies  to  be  not  only  a  dootrine  of  this  ohuroh,  but  a  principal 

Point  of  Christianity. 

1  bless  God  who  gave  me  courage  and  oonstanoj  to 
1  See  Lifeof  Bishop  White Eenn$U, p.  18. 


GEOEGE  HICKES  103 

the  oath,  and  making  me  stand  in  the  time  of  Trial,  when  so 
many  others  to  my  astonishment  fell.  However  in  that  great 
Apostasy  of  the  Nation  it  pleased  God  to  reserve  to  Himself  a 
Eemnant  of  faithful  persons,  and  I  magnify  Him  with  all  my 
soul,  and  will  ever  praise  Him  as  long  as  I  have  my  being,  for 
making  me  one  of  them,  and  thinking  me  worthy  to  suffer  in 
so  righteous  a  cause  as  that  under  which  I  have  been  engaged. 

I  praise  God  for  giving  me  an  active  zeal  to  defend  our 
cause  in  several  pieces.  .  .  .  And  as  I  trust  I  wrote  them  with 
a  zeal  not  unsuitable  to,  or  unworthy  of  our  glorious  Cause,  so 
I  wrote  them  with  an  intention  so  pure  and  with  so  great  a 
regard  to  truth  that  to  my  knowledge  I  have  not  injured  any 
one  person  in  them. 

But  if  I  have  been  misinformed  about  any  ....  I  ask 
God's  pardon  for  it.  If  my  zeal  for  Truth  and  Righteousness 
and  the  Constitution,  Rights  and  Unity  of  the  Church  hath, 
notwithstanding  my  care  to  the  contrary,  transported  me  too 
far,  and  made  me  write  against  any  one  of  our  adversaries  with 
more  indignation  and  severity  of  expression  than  was  consistent 
with  strictness  of  Christian  meekness  and  charity,  I  beg  his 
Pardon  for  that,  and  the  favourable  construction  of  all  good 
men,  who  know  what  allowances  are  to  be  made  to  the  best 
men,  that  write  controversies  on  such  subjects  and  occasions, 
and  against  such  insulting  and  provoking  Adversaries,  and  in 
such  degenerate  and  unhappy  Times. 

I  beseech  God  of  His  infinite  mercy  to  turn  the  hearts  of 
this  great  people,  and  those  who  mislead  them,  that  they  may 
return  to  their  obedience,  and  call  back  their  exiled  king,  and 
so  put  an  end  to  those  distractions  and  confusions,  which  can 
have  no  end  till  the  hereditary  king  by  lineal  descent  comes  to 
wear  the  Crown. 

I  also  declare  my  hearty  sorrow  for  the  schism  which  the 
whole  nation,  except  a  small  remnant,  is  guilty  of  in  ejecting 
and  forsaking  their  rightful  Bishops  and  Pastors,  and  I 
beseech  God  so  to  touch  the  hearts  and  understandings  of  the 
people  and  the  clergy,  who  mislead  them  that  they  may 
repent  etc. 

I  beseech  God  to  give  the  king  l  a  sight  of  his  errors  and 
true  repentance  for  his  apostasy  from  the  true  religion  in  which 
he  was  baptised,  and  for  which  his  Father  was  both  a  Confessor 

1  That  is,  of  course,  King  James. 


104  THE  NONJURORS 

and  Martyr ;  and  to  bless  and  convert  the  Queen  ;  and  as  for 
the  Prince  of  Wales,  I  pray  God  to  look  upon  him,  as  the 
grandson  of  the  Royal  Martyr,  that  he  may  live  to  sit  upon  the 
Throne  of  his  Ancestors,  and  become  a  Josiah  to  this  Church 
and  Kingdom ;  and  give  him  grace  timely  to  discern  the  errors 
of  his  education,  and  if,  by  God's  Providence,  this  paper  happen 
to  come  to  his  sight,  I  desire  and  conjure  him,  by  all  that  I 
have  done  for  the  Royal  Cause,  to  read  the  excellent  works  of 
his  grandfather  and  great-grandfather,  who  were  learned  and 
religious  kings,  and  much  more  able  and  competent  judges  than 
his  Royal  Father,  in  the  great  controversy  between  us  and  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

I  beg  God  to  comfort  and  support  the  whole  suffering 
Remnant,  .  .  .  particularly  the  Bishops  and  clergy,  and  espe- 
cially to  direct  our  holy  Fathers,  the  Bishops,  that  they  may 
provide  for  the  Church  in  times  to  come,  and  not  leave  the  Flock 
which  adheres  to  them,  like  Sheep  without  a  Shepherd  ;  and 
their  Successors  in  all  they  do  and  suffer  for  His  sake,  and 
when  the  time  of  healing  and  reunion  shall  come,  they  may  re- 
settle the  Church  in  Truth,  Peace  and  Unity. 

As  I  have  always  maintained  the  just  rights  and  preroga- 
tives of  the  Crown,  so  to  the  best  of  my  understanding  I  have 
maintained  the  lawful  rights  of  the  people.  What  the  Constitu- 
tion and  Law  give  the  King,  I  will  render  to  his  Majesty. 
What  Immunities,  Rights,  and  Liberties  the  people  have  by  oar 
Constitution,  I  will  claim  and  defend  as  a  subject ;  and  this  I 
declare  for  the  sake  of  some  men  who  have  misrepresented  and 
slandered  many  truly  loyal  and  conscientious  persons,  as  if 
they  were  for  arbitrary  power  and  betraying  of  the  Liberties  of 
their  country,  because  they  teach  and  maintain  our  kings  to  be 
truly  Sovereigns,  and  us  such  to  be  irresistible,  indeposuhle,  and 
unaccountable  to  the  People.  But  it  is  one  thing  for  a  King,  a  i 
supreme,  to  have  those  prerogatives  of  Supremacy,  and  another 
to  have  unlimited  and  arbitrary  Power:  For  the  Law  limits 
both  King's  and  People's  rights,  and  I  neither  am,  nor  ever  wa  . 
nor  ever  will  be  for  arbitrary  Government,  or  boundless  power 
in  the  one,  or  boundless  liberty  in  the  other. 

This  Profession  I  have  made  in  my  health,  that  I  may  not 
have  to  do  it  at  the  time  of  my  death. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Hickes  lived  for  nearly  twenty 
years  after  making  this  'Declaration';    but  he   never 


GEOEGE  HICKES  105 

swerved  from  it,  and  indeed  referred  to  it  as  expressing 
his  convictions  in  his  will,  made  within  a  year  of  his 
death.  It  tells  its  own  tale — the  tale  of  one  who  was  a 
Nonjuror,  a  Jacobite,  and  a  Protestant.  The  only  passage 
in  it  which  requires  comment  is  that  in  which  he  refers 
to  any  harsh  language  which  he  may  have  used  against 
his  adversaries. 

That  he  did  use  such  language  is  one  of  the  chief 
charges  brought  against  him,  and  it  is  certainly  true.  It 
would  be  strange  if  it  were  not,  for  Hickes  was  a  man  of 
strong  and  definite  convictions,  which  he  expressed  in 
the  most  downright  and  outspoken  terms.  He  was  a 
voluminous  writer,  and  much  that  he  wrote  was  written 
in  the  white  heat  of  controversy.  He  felt  very  keenly 
the  personal  injustice  which  he  thought  had  been  done 
to  himself  and  his  fellow-sufferers,  and  still  more  keenly 
the  inconsistency  with  their  own  often-expressed  senti- 
ments of  many  who  had  taken  their  places,  and  he 
frequently  wrote  under  severe  provocation.  Here  is  one 
of  his  strictures  en  masse  : 

The  Dethroning  and  Depriving  of  Bightful  Canonical  Bishops 
by  the  Secular  Powers  for  adhering  to  their  Christian  Duty,  is 
yet  a  greater  Sin,  and  also  receives  further  Aggravation,  when 
those  Secular  Powers  are  not  Lawful,  but  Usurping  Powers  : 
And  those  Priests  or  Bishops,  who  dare  Usurp  the  Thrones  of 
Kightful,  Canonical  Bishops,  so  in  validly,  so  unjustly,  so  illegally 
deprived,  and  driven  from  their  Thrones,  are  of  all  others  the 
most  detestable  Usurpers,  Breakers  of  the  Bond  of  Peace,  Unity, 
Subordination,  and  all  Charity  in  the  City  of  God;  very  Corahs, 
from  whom  the  Lord's  People  ought  to  separate  by  the  Laws 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Catholick  Cburch  :  They 
can  perform  no  valid  Acts  of  Priesthood ;  their  very  Prayers  are 
Sin ;  their  Sacraments  are  no  Sacraments  ;  their  Absolutions 
are  null  and  void  ;  God  ratines  nothing  in  Heaven  which  they 
do  in  His  Name  upon  Earth ;  they,  and  all  that  adhere  to  them , 
are  out  of  the  Church  ;  they  can  claim  no  Benefits  of  God's 
Promises,  no  not  of  His  Assisting  Grace,  nor  of  the  Kemission 


106  THE  NONJURORS 

of  Sins  through  the  Merits  of  Christ's  Blood.  Nay,  though 
they  should  dye  Martyrs  in  the  Schism,  their  Martyrdom 
would  not  he  accepted,  they  would  lose  the  Crown  of  Glory 
promised  to  it ;  nay,  tho'  they  had  many  Lives  to  lose  in 
Martyrdom,  or  could  dye  Martyrs  more  than  once,  they  could 
not  make  amends  for  their  Sin  with  their  Blood.1 

Of  those  who  '  dared  to  usurp  the  Thrones  of  Rightful, 
Canonical  Bishops,'  the  two  most  obnoxious  to  Dr. 
Hickes  were  Archbishop  Tillotson  and  Bishop  Burnet ; 
the  former  as  the  Coryphaeus  of  the  '  Revolution  Church  ' 
and  supplanter  of  the  Nonjuring  leader,  Archbishop 
Sancroft ;  the  latter  as  the  real  fons  ct  origo  mali,  who, 
though  he  did  not  actually  succeed  a  deprived  bishop, 
was  the  chief  cause  of  all  the  Nonjuring  bishops  being 
deprived.  When,  then,  Bishop  Burnet  preached  a  funeral 
sermon  on  Archbishop  Tillotson — in  which  it  must  be 
confessed  that  passages  occur  sufficiently  provoking  to 
all  who  held  the  principles  of  the  Nonjurors — it  is  not 
surprising  that  Hickes  took  the  opportunity  of  'killing 
two  birds  with  one  stone,'  and  published  (anonymously, 
indeed,  but  the  authorship  was  obvious)  '  Some  Dis- 
courses upon  Dr.  Burnet  and  Dr.  Tillotson  occasioned  by 
the  late  Funeral  Sermon  of  the  Former  upon  the  Later  ' 
(1695).  The  Preface  is  not  promising.  'I  know  very 
well,'  says  its  writer,  *  that  it  [the  book]  will  be  called  a 
Libel,  and  a  Defamatory  Libel  ;  but  I  care  not  for  that, 
since  so  many  excellent  books  were  so  miscalled  in  the 
Times  of  former  Usurpations.'  Neither  is  the  Intro- 
duction, in  which  the  obnoxious  sermon  is  described  as 
'  preacht  at  the  Funeral  of  the  late  Dean  of  Canterbury,* 
win  mi  the  preacher  stiles,  By  Divine   Providence  Lord 

1  The  Constitution  of  the  Catholicik  Church,  and  the  Natun  and  Con- 
ies of  Schism,  pp.  H2-3. 

1  It  will  be  observed  that  Blokes  does  not  even  reooi  a]  s  Till  I 
Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  because  be  had  been  appointed  to  that  post  under 
William  ill. 


GEOEGE  HICKES  107 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  Metropolitan  of  All  Eng- 
land.' But  I  am  bound  to  say  that,  on  reading  both 
Burnet's  sermon  and  Hickes's  discourses  upon  it,  I  did 
not  find  either  so  exasperating  as  the  many  comments 
which  I  had  read  upon  both  led  me  to  expect.  First,  as 
to  the  sermon  itself.  Considering  that  it  was  preached 
before  Tillotson's  old  congregation  at  St.  Lawrence 
Jewry,  who  loved  and  were  proud  of  him,  it  really  does 
not  go  beyond  what  would  be  fully  expected  from  the 
preacher  in  the  way  of  panegyric.  The  greater  part  is 
a  touching  tribute,  evidently  from  the  heart,  of  one  friend 
to  another.  Given  Burnet's  premisses,  he  could  hardly 
have  said  less.  But,  Burnet-like,  he  cannot  resist  the 
temptation  to  improve  the  occasion  by  making  a  most 
unwarranted  and  exasperating  attack — which,  even  if 
warranted,  would  have  been  unnecessary  and  out  of 
place — upon  the  deprived  bishops.  He  perverts  their 
natural  unwillingness  to  create  a  schism  into  a  desire  to 
retain  their  sees  ;  denies  their  title  to  be  called  '  Con- 
fessors, indeed,  to  which  they  afterwards  pretended.' 
'  They  concealed  their  Principles,  and  withdrew  from  the 
public  worship  of  the  Church,  and  yet  dared  not  to  act 
or  speak  against  it.  They  hoped  at  this  rate  to  have 
held  their  Sees  and  enjoyed  their  Bevenues.'  If  Hickes 
had  confined  himself  to  an  answer  to  this  attack  it  would 
have  been  well.  But  in  eighty-eight  closely  printed  pages 
he  picked  in  pieces  the  whole  sermon,  beginning  with  the 
text :  «  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,'  &c,  implying  that 
Tillotson  had  not  fought  a  good  fight,  and  had  not  kept 
the  faith,  and  showing  in  detail  that  the  preacher  had 
given  him  '  a  character  much  above  his  merits.'  Against 
Burnet  himself  he  rakes  up  many  old  stories  which  had 
best  have  been  left  in  oblivion.  But  it  was  the  deprecia- 
tion of  Tillotson  which  gave  the  greatest  offence.     There 


108  THE  NONJURORS 

is  something  peculiarly  ungracious  in  passing  strictures 
on  a  man  just  after  his  death,  and  the  funeral  sermon 
might  safely  have  been  left  to  be  taken  cum  grano,  as  it 
would  have  been. 

It  is  fair  to  add  that  Hickes  draws  a  marked  distinction 
between  Burnet  and  Tillotson  on  the  one  hand  and  '  the 
main  body  of  the  clergy '  on  the  other,  who, 

God  be  thanked,  are  of  quite  different  spirits  ;  they  do  not  per- 
secute their  old  brethren  for  their  strict  doctrines,  but  pity  and 
help  to  support  them.  They  know  by  experience  how  hard  it 
was  for  Conscience  to  overcome  the  difficulties  of  the  New 
Oath  ;  and  therefore  they  retain  very  tender  compassions  for 
those  who  could  not  overcome  them,  and  honour  them  in 
their  Hearts,  as  men  of  Principles,  who  are  most  faithful  to 
English  Monarchy,  zealous  for  the  honour  and  prosperity  of  the 
Royal  Family,  and  the  Catholick  Doctrines  and  Rights  of  the 
Church. 

And  then  he  appends  a  note. 

Among  the  worthy  men  here  described  was  Mr.  Wharton, 
who  put  out  Archbishop  Laud's  works ;  Dr.  Dove,  who,  as  all 
the  world  knows,  took  the  New  Oath  with  so  much  reluctance  ; 
Dr.  Scot,  who  first  refused  the  bishopric  of  Chester  because  he 
could  not  take  the  Oath  of  Homage,  then  another  bishopric, 
then  the  deanery  of  Worcester,  and  a  prebend  of  Windsor, 
because  they  all  were  places  of  deprived  men. 

This  last  passage  explains,  or,  at  least,  illustrates,  a 
curious  feature  in  Dr.  Hickes.  Though  he  held  the  very 
strictest  views  in  the  most  uncompromising  fashion,  he 
still  retained  in  a  remarkable  degree  his  friendship  with 
men  who  thought  quite  differently  from  himself.  Whether 
he  believed  that  the  men  (as  is  often  the  case)  were  better 
than  their  opinions,  or  whether,  as  some  would  say,  he 
himflftlf  was  more  charitable  than  his  own  opinions,  the 
fact  remains  that  his  practice  was  far  more  liberal  than 
his  theory.     He  lived,  as   we  have   seen,  for  some  time 


GEOEGE  HICKES  109 

amicably  in  the  same  house  with  V/hite  Kennett,  who 
was  more  obnoxious  than  most  of  the  '  Kevolution 
Churchmen '  to  the  Nonjurors,  because  he  was  regarded 
by  them  as  a  renegade  from  the  cause  to  which  he  had 
once  adhered.  He  kept  up  his  friendship  with  Dean 
Comber,  after  the  latter  had  committed  that  most  heinous 
of  all  offences — accepting  the  preferment  of  which  a 
staunch  Nonjuror  (Dean  Granville)  had  been  deprived. 
He  continued,  not  only  in  correspondence,  but  on  visiting 
terms,  with  Kalph  Thoresby,  who  was  still  half  a  dis- 
senter. The  fact  that  his  old  pupil  at  Lincoln  College, 
Sir  George  Wheler,  accepted  preferment  in  the  '  Revolu- 
tion Church '  did  not  in  the  least  interfere  with  the  mutual 
respect  and  affection  which  the  two  entertained  for  one 
another.1  In  his  Preface  to  the  '  Thesaurus  '  he  spoke  of 
William  Nicolson,  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  who  was  an  un- 
compromising foe  of  the  Nonjurors,  and  as  a  border 
bishop  was  nervously  alarmed  about  the  advances  of  the 
Jacobites  and  advocated  the  adoption  of  stricter  measures 
for  their  repression,  as  a  man 

to  be  honourably  named  for  his  manifold  erudition,  specially 
illustrious  on  account  of  his  knowledge  of  the  Northern  litera- 
ture, that  highly  reverend  prelate,  who  when  very  many  times 
consulted  by  us,  quite  as  an  oracle,  in  difficult  and  obscure 
matters,  always  gave  us  answers  full  of  light,  in  which  he 
explained  everything,  with  the  utmost  courtesy  and  without 
delay. 

In  the  same  Preface  he  made  honourable  mention  of 
Edmund  Gibson,  afterwards  Bishop  of  London,  then  the 
domestic  chaplain  and  protege  of  Archbishop  Tenison, 
the  Nonjurors'  abhorrence,  and  of  White  Kennett,  once 
his  friend,  now  becoming  more  and  more  his  enemy, 

1  See  the  Memoirs  of  Sir   George    Wheler,   Prebendary  of  Durham, 
passim. 


110  THE  NONJURORS 

that  reverend  and  most  learned  man,  who  seven  years  ago  often 
urged  me  to  gird  myself  to  this  work  ahout  the  ancient  Northern 
letters,  which,  as  they  seemed  to  him  worthy  of  the  knowledge 
of  all  men,  in  his  house  I  began  without  delay  our  books,  in 
which,  now  that  they  are  at  length  brought  to  a  close,  if  I  have 
in  any  way  helped  the  republic  of  letters,  to  him,  as  the  auspice, 
all  that  I  have  done  is  to  be  attributed. 

Friendship  is  never  put  to  a  more  severe  strain  than 
when  two  friends  who  have  long  walked  together  come  at 
the  last  to  the  parting  of  the  ways  ;  but  Hickes's  friend- 
ship with  Eobert  Nelson  could  bear  even  this  strain. 
'  Not  even  the  conformity  of  Nelson  to  the  Established 
Church  in  1709  impaired  the  intimacy  of  his  friendship 
with  the  leader  of  the  Nonjurors  [Hickes]  till  the  death 
of  Nelson  one  year  before  his  friend.'  *  Hickes  also 
remained  to  the  last  a  personal  friend  of  Nathaniel  Mar- 
shall, who  was  actually  a  chaplain  of  King  George  I. 
and  a  most  persistent  and  formidable  opponent  of  the 
Nonjurors.  In  fact,  so  friendly  were  they  that  Marshall 
could  hardly  believe  his  eyes  when  he  read  the  post- 
humous publication  of  Hickes's  'Collection  of  Papers,' 
&c,  in  1710.  This  work  more  than  anything  else 
led  to  the  publication  of  Marshall's  '  Defence  of  our 
Constitution  in  Church  and  State,  or  an  Answer  to  the 
late  Charge  of  the  Nonjurors,  accusing  us  of  Heresy 
and  Schism,  Perjury  and  Treason '  (1717),  as  it  also  led 
to  Hoadly's  '  Preservative  against  the  Nonjurors ' — two 
of  the  most  powerful  books  ever  written  against  the 
Nonjurors. 

From  my  personal  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Hickes  [writes 
Marshall]  I  could  relate  many  circumstances  which  {ass^l 
between  myself  and  him,  from  whence  any  reasonable  man 
might  conclude  that  he  thought  me  no  schismatio.  .  .  .  For  any 

1  Secretau's  Memoirs  of  (he  Life  ami  Times  of  the  Pious  Robert  Neleon, 
p.  67. 


GEOEGE  HICKES  111 

man  to  converse,  as  he  was  pleased  to  do  with  me,  with  all 
possible  tokens  of  friendship,  freedom,  and  affection,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  believe  me  in  a  damnable  state,  without  one  word 
of  admonition  to  me  concerning  my  danger,  are  circumstances 
which  I  know  not  how  for  my  life  to  bring  together,  nor  to 
make  consistent ;  and  therefore  I  yet  withhold  my  assent  to  the 
truth  of  what  the  publisher  hath  said  in  the  collection  of  Papers 
assigned  to  him,  that  they  are  printed  from  any  faithful  copy  of 
Dr.  Hickes'  writings.1 

But  Hickes's  conduct  seems  to  me  very  intelligible. 
He  was  not  responsible  for  Mr.  Marshall's  soul ;  and, 
whatever  the  differences  between  them  might  be,  he  felt 
it  his  duty  to  live  in  peace  and  amity  with  those  who 
were  brought  into  contact  with  him.  Moreover,  it 
must  never  be  forgotten  that,  with  his  intense  belief 
in  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state  (a  primitive 
doctrine  which  all  but  slipped  out  of  eighteenth  century 
theology),  Hickes  would  not  have  meant  quite  the 
same  by  '  a  damnable  state  '  as  Marshall  would  probably 
mean  by  it. 

Hickes's  complaisance,  however,  by  no  means  pleased 
all  his  Nonjuring  friends.  Thomas  Hearne,  in  spite  of 
his  reverence  for  Hickes,  whom  he  calls  '  a  man,  if  any 
one  in  England  is,  most  learned,  most  upright,  most 
sagacious,  and  (so  great  is  his  virtue  and  modesty)  far 
removed  from  ambition  and  the  desire  of  honours  and 
riches,' 2  was  much  displeased  at  it.  He  thinks  it  '  far 
beneath  him  [Hickes],  and  looked  upon  as  a  Piece  of 
Indiscretion  to  cringe  to  low,  fanatical  Fellows,' 3  one  of 
those  '  fellows  '  being  John  Potter,  afterwards  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  whom  Hickes  had  praised  in  one  of  his 
Prefaces.  But  Hearne  forgave  him  this  weakness,  for 
in  the  same  year  (1712)  he  writes  to  Hilkiah  Bedford, 

I  Defence,  &c,  p.  179.         "  See  Collections  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  ii.  293. 
s  Ibid.  ii.  334 ;  also  iii.  384. 


112  THE  NONJURORS 

'I  hope  y°  Dean  is  recovered;  for  I  heartily  pray  that 
God  would  continue  the  Life  of  this  Great  and  Good  Man, 
upon  whom  so  much  depends.'  r  Bedford  was  the  closest 
friend  Hickes  ever  had  since  the  death  of  Kettlewell ;  he 
made  him  his  literary  executor,  and  Bedford  was  engaged 
in  writing  the  Life  of  Hickes — a  task  which  it  is  much 
to  be  lamented  that  he  never  completed.  Hickes  died  at 
the  close  of  1715,  and  his  death  was  an  era  in  Non- 
juring  annals. 

The  other  bishop,  who  was  consecrated  at  the  same 
time  and  in  the  same  place,  was  not  so  prominent  a  man 
as  Hickes ;  but  he  was  a  man  of  considerable  mark  in  his 
day,  and  was  fully  equal,  both  in  abilities  and  attainments, 
and  also  in  piety  and  general  character,  to  the  post  for 
which  he  was  chosen. 

Thomas  Wag  staff e  (1645-1712)  was  a  member  of  em 
old  Warwickshire  family,  more  than  one  member  of 
which  had  been  distinguished  on  the  Royalist  side  in  the 
Civil  War.  He  was  educated  at  the  Charterhouse,  and 
at  New  Inn  Hall,  Oxford,  where  he  graduated  in  L667. 
He  was  ordained  deacon  in  1669  by  Bishop  Hacket,  of 
Lichfield,  and  priest  in  the  same  year  by  Bishop  Henshaw, 
of  Peterborough,  when  he  was  instituted  to  the  benefice  of 
Martinsthorpe.  He  was  also  chaplain  to  Sir  Richard 
Temple  and  curate  of  Stow.  In  1684  he  became 
Chancellor  and  Prebendary  of  Lichfield,  and  in  the  same 
year  was  presented  by  the  Crown  to  the  rectory  of  St. 
Margaret  Pattens,  with  which  the  neighbouring  parish  of 
St.  Gabriel,  Fenchurch  Street,  in  the  City  of  London, 
had  been  united  after  the  Great  Fire.  In  L689  he  refused 
to  take  the  oath,  and  of  course  lost  all  his  preferments. 
He  was  not  reduced  to  the  straits  to  which  some  of  the 
Nonjurors  were,  for  his  family  connections  would  hardly 

1  Cvlkclions  (Oxf.  Hist.  Boc),  Hi.  496. 


THOMAS   WAGSTAFFE  113 

have  allowed  him  to  be  penniless,  and  he  is  said  to  have 
'  studied  physic  before  his  admission  to  Holy  Orders.' x 
When,  therefore,  he  was  deprived  of  all  his  clerical  income 
he  contrived  to  maintain  himself  and  his  family,  which 
became  numerous,  by  practising  physic  in  London. 

Among  those  who  consulted  him  professionally  were 
Francis  Turner,  deprived  Bishop  of  Ely,  and  Archbishop 
Sancroft.  He  was  with  the  latter  at  Fressingfield,  partly 
perhaps  as  an  intimate  friend,  partly  as  a  medical  adviser, 
for  some  time  during  the  archbishop's  last  illness,  of 
which  he  has  given  us  a  most  touching  and  vivid  account.2 
He  does  not  appear  to  have  officiated  regularly  in  any  of 
the  Nonjuring  oratories,  nor  to  have  exercised  any  episcopal 
functions,  for  his  name  does  not  occur  in  connection  with 
any  of  the  few  ordinations  that  took  place  during  his  episco- 
pate ;  and,  as  there  were  no  more  episcopal  consecrations 
until  after  his  death,  he  had  no  opportunity  of  doing  that 
part  of  a  bishop's  work.  But  he  always  identified  him- 
self thoroughly  with  the  Nonjuring  cause,  writing  ably  in 
its  behalf,  and  taking  a  prominent  part  in  the  scheme  for 
raising  a  fund  for  the  relief  of  the  suffering  clergy,  for 
which  he  was  apprehended  and  had  to  appear  with  the 
rest  before  the  Privy  Council ;  but  he  was  soon  released 
from  custody.  He  still  continued  to  take  an  active  part 
in  the  benevolent  scheme  of  relief;  for  Hearne  tells  us 
as  late  as  1705  that  'Mr.  Wagstaffe  [with  Mr.  Spinckes] 
is  imployed  to  distribute  such  moneys  as  are  given  by  the 

1  See  Miss  Strickland's  Lives  of  tlie  Seven  Bishops,  p.  144.  An  eminent 
living  physician  (Dr.  Norman  Moore)  says  that  'Thomas  Wagstaffe,  the 
Nonjuror,  carried  on  a  practice  of  physic,  which  as  it  was  based  on 
academical  training  and  extensive  reading,  and  was  undertaken  from  a 
necessity  due  to  a  fidelity  to  conscience,  was  not  interfered  with  by  the 
College  of  Physicians,  which  then  had  power  to  stop  all  unlicensed  practice.' 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  vol.  lviii.,  sub  nomine  '  Wagstaffe, 
William.' 

*  See  A  Letter  out  of  Suffolk,  &c,  described  below. 

I 


114  THE  NONJURORS 

chief  Jacobites  for  charitable  uses.'  x  But  he  passed  the 
later  years  of  his  life  in  his  native  county,  in  his  own 
house  at  Binley,  where  he  died.2  He  was  very  active 
with  his  pen,  writing  chiefly,  but  not  exclusively,  on  Non- 
juring  subjects,  and  by  universal  consent  he  is  regarded 
as  an  able  writer.  Even  Lord  Macaulay,  who  of  course 
vehemently  disagrees  with  him,  and  calls  him  '  a  fierce 
and  uncompromising  Nonjuror,' 3  owns  that  he  was  '  a 
writer  whom  the  Jacobite  schismatics  justly  regarded  as 
one  of  their  ablest  chiefs.' 4  Hearne,  who,  equally  of 
course,  agreed  with  him,  says  '  he  is  a  man  of  very  good 
Parts,  and  considerable  Learning,' 5  and  the  '  Postboy,'  in 
announcing  his  death  in  October  1712,  says  : 

He  was  a  man  of  extraordinary  judgment,  exemplary  piety, 
and  unusual  learning ;  and  had  he  not  had  the  misfortune  to 
dissent  from  the  established  government  by  not  taking  the 
oaths,  as  he  had  all  the  qualities  of  a  great  divine,  and  a  governor 
of  the  Church,  so  he  would  have  filled  deservedly  some  of  the 
highest  stations  in  it. 

Wagstaffe's  writings  fully  bear  out  these  high  estimates 
of  his  intellectual  power,  and  it  is  a  curious  instance  of 
the  fact  that  the  enforced  withdrawal  of  the  Nonjurors 
from  public  life  made  them  active  with  their  pens,  that  all 
his  writings  date  from  after  the  Revolution  ;  in  other 
words,  he  published  nothing  till  he  was  nearer  fifty  than 
forty  years  of  age.  His  best  known  work  is  an  able 
defence  of  the  Royal  authorship  of  the  El/ctbv  \laai\tK>}, 
entitled  a  '  Vindication  of  King  Charles  the  Martyr,'  &c. 

1  Collections  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  i.  30. 

*  He  must,  however,  have  been  living  in  London  in  1707,  for  in  that 
year  his  illative,  William  WugstalTc,  want  to  live  with  him  and  then 
acquired  a  taste  for  medical  studies,  and  became  an  eminent  physician. 
William  married  Thomas  WaRstaffe's  daughter. 

*  History  of  England,  ch.  xvii.  (vol.  ii.-p.  2G0). 

*  /</.  ch.  xx.  (vol.  ii.  p.  600).  ■  Collections,  i.  38. 


THOMAS  WAGSTAFFE  115 

(1693).  Of  those  directly  connected  with  the  Nonjuring 
controversy,  the  earliest  was  published  anonymously  in 
1690,  under  the  title  of  '  An  Answer  to  a  late  Pamphlet 
entituled  Obedience  and  Submission  to  the  Present  Govern- 
ment demonstrated  from  Bishop  Overall's  Convocation 
Book.  With  a  Postscript  in  answer  to  Dr.  Sherlock's 
Case  of  Allegiance.'  It  is  written  in  a  bright,  lively  style, 
and  the  subject  is  ably  argued  out.  An  extract  from  it 
will  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  the  man.  The  pamphlet 
to  which  it  was  an  answer  was  also  anonymous,  but  was 
known  to  be  the  work  of  Zachary  Taylor,  vicar  of  Orms- 
kirk,1  and  was  supposed  to  have  helped  to  bring  about  the 
conversion  (or,  as  Wagstaffe  would  have  said,  the  per- 
version) of  William  Sherlock. 

The  author  [says  Wagstaffe]  begins  with  charging  the  non- 
swearers  with  Malice  or  Ignorance,  for  reproaching  those  of  the 
Church  of  England  who  have  taken  the  oaths  with  deserting 
their  Principles.  Perhaps  he  thinks  it  a  very  malicious  thing 
in  them  to  be  deprived  of  their  livings  and  Preferments ;  for 
what  other  instances  of  Malice  they  have  been  guilty  of  I  cannot 
devise.  Well,  it  was  spightfully  done  of  them  to  lose  their 
Livelihoods,  and  in  such  a  reflecting  manner,  to  reproach  those 
who  swore,  and  kept  or  advanced  theirs  :  Whereas  they  might 
have  taken  the  Oaths,  and  if  they  could  not  with  a  good  con- 
science, at  least  they  ought  to  have  done  it  to  save  the  reputa- 
tion of  their  brethren.  If  by  Ignorance,  he  means  they  do  not 
know,  but  those  have  deserted  their  Principles,  for  my  Part, 
I  confess  the  fact.  .  .  .  They  [the  swearers]  have  often  been 
called  upon  to  shew  the  consistency  of  their  present  Practices 
either  with  the  general  principles  of  the  Church  of  England  or 
with  their  own  Principles,  but  they  will  not  do  it ;  and  this 
author  still  keeps  us  in  Ignorance.  They  have  plenty  of  Argu- 
ments taken  out  of  Parsons  the  Jesuit,  and  from  the  Eebels  of 
1642,  and  from  the  Advocates  of  Cromwell's  Usurpation.  These 
we  meet  with  in  every  Pamphlet,  and  a  man  may  look  his  eyes 
out  before  he  can  find  any  other  ;  and  this  author  is  the  first 

1  See  Hearne's  Collections,  iii.  389. 

l  2 


116  THE  NONJUEOES 

that  ever  pretended  to  produce  any  public  act  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  favour  of  such  Practices  [p.  I].1 

1  It  may  interest  some  readers  to  see  the  Apographum  of  the  consecra- 
tion of  Wagstaffe,  which  mutato  nomine  applies  to  Hickes. 

Apographtim  consecrationis  &c.  R.  A.  Viri  Tlwrnca  Wagstaffe,  A.M., 
1693. 

In  Dei  Nomine,  Amen. 

Acta  habita  gesta  et  expedita  in  negotio  Consecrationis  reverendi  viri 
Thomae  Wagstaffe  Artium  Magistri,  in  Episcopum  Suffraganeum  sive  pas- 
torem  ecclesiarum  de  Ipswich  nominati  et  electi  in  vigiliis  Scti  Matthias 
Apostoli,  viz.  vigesimo  tertio  die  mensis  Februarii  an0  Dili  milles0  sexcentes" 
nonages"  tertio,  an0  regni  illustrissimi  principis  ac  dfii  dfii  Jacobi  secundi, 
Dei  gra  Angl.  Scot.  Franciae  et  Hiberniae  Regis  fidei  defensoris  decimo  in 
capella  sive  oratorio  reverendi  in  Christo  patris  ac  dfii,  dni  Thomae,  per- 
missione  divina  Petriburgensis  EpI  et  parochiade  Enfield,  coram  reverendis 
in  Christo  patribus  ac  diiis  domino  Gulielmo  permissione  divina  Norvicensi 
Epo  et  Francisco  eadem  permissione  Eliensi  Epu  necnon  Thoma  eadem 
permissione  Petriburgensi  Epu,  commissariis  in  hac  parte  (inter  alios) 
legitime  fulcitis  et  constitutis.  Praesente  etiam  me  Rob'0  Douglas  in 
actorem  scribam  in  hac  parte  assumpto,  prout  sequitur,  viz. : 

Die  et  loco  praedictis  inter  horam  nonam  et  undecimam  ante  meridiem 
coram  commissariis  supra  nominatis  comparuit  personaliter  illustrissimus 
dfius  Henricus  Comes  de  Clarendon  et  tunc  et  ibidem  pracsentavit  prae. 
rever.  patr.  corliissariis  literas  commissionales  regias  eis  (inter  alios) 
directas  supplicando,  quatenus  onus  executionis  literarum  commissiona- 
lium  hujusmodi  in  se  assumere,  et  juxta  vim,  tenorem  et  effectum  earun- 
dem,  in  dicto  consecrationis  negotio  decernere  dignarentur.  Quibus  quidem 
Uteris  commissionalibus  de  mandato  praedictorum  commissariorum  per  me 
publice  visis,  lectis,  et  diu  ponderatis,  commissarii  pracdicti,  ob  reverentiam 
et  debitum  honorem  dicto  illustr"'0  principi  et  domino  nostro  acceptarunt 
in  se  onus  literarum  prajdictarum  hujusmodi  decreverunt  procedendum  foro 
juxta  vim,  formam  et  effectum  earundem.  Tunc  commissarii  praxlieti 
capellam  sive  oratorium  prffidictum  ingredientes  ubi  omnia  ordine  suo 
parata  erant  et  instructa,  reverendus  in  Christo  pater,  Guliclmus  episcopus 
Norvicensis  preces  continuo  clara  voce  recitabat.  Quibus  peractis,  munus 
consecrationis  reverendi  Thome  Wagstaffe  Artium  Blag*1  in  Episcopum 
suffraganeum  et  pastorem  Ecclesiarum  de  Ipswich,  in  comitatu  Suffocia\ 
prrestito  prius  per  eum  (spontanii-)  juramento  de  agnoscendo  regiam 
supremam  potestatem  in  causis  ecclesiasticis  et  temporalibus  ac  de 
rennnoiando  omni  et  omniinodu3  jurisdiction!,  potestati  ct  authoritati 
toraneis,  juxta  vim,  formam  et  effectum  statuti  parliamenti  hujus  iihlvu 
regni  Angliea  in  ea  parte  editi  et  provisi,  quani  de  rovorentia  B<  & 
obedientia  reverendiflBlmo  domino  Oantoaria  ArohiepiBoopo  lc^itinii-  el 
oanonicu  intniuti  adhibendo.  Observandis  iniupei  ft  aclliilniulis  juxte 
moduin  et  (onnam  deaoriptam  in  libra  intiiolo  The  tonn  ami  iikiiuht  oi 
making  and  consecrating  Priests  and  Deacons  etc.  ratlitei  iinpt  lul.liani. 

Ipsumque  Thomam  WagbtaO"(.'  ordinaront  in  Episcopum  snffraganeam  de 


THOMAS  WAGSTAFFE  117 

The  ■  public  act '  is  Overall's  Convocation  Book,  and 
Wagstaffe  remarks  appositely :  '  I  presume  there  is  not 
one  single  person  but  what  had  taken  the  oath,  either 
before  the  publication  of  the  Convocation  Book  or  without 
any  respect  to  it.'  He  concludes  his  postscript  in  answer 
to  Sherlock : 

I  believe,  should  any  man  at  that  time  [when  Sherlock 
wrote  '  The  Case  of  Eesistance ']  have  but  asked  him  the 
Question,  concerning  his  present  Opinions  and  Practices,  he 
would  have  returned  such  an  Answer  as  Hazael  gave  to  Elisha 
['Is  thy  'servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do  this  great  thing?'] 
But  Hazael  afterwards  changed  his  mind  and  so  has  the 
Doctor  [p.  48]. 

The  '  Letter  out  of  Suffolk  to  a  Friend  in  London, 
giving  some  Account  of  the  last  sickness  and  death  of  Dr. 
William  Sancroft,  late  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,'  shows 
that  Wagstaffe  had  a  heart  as  well  as  a  head.  It  bears 
every  trace  of  his  having  felt  what  he  wrote : 

Here  [he  says]  you  have  before  you  a  glorious  confessor,  here 
you  have  your  Holy  Archbishop,  making  a  safe  Passage  through 
Storms  and  Tempests,  and  carrying  his  integrity  of  Conscience 
undefiled  to  the  Grave  (p.  6). 

We  had  a  most  reverend  Archbishop  in  Fresingfield,  when 
there  was  none  at  Lambeth,  nor  nothing  like  it  [p.  26]. 

Wagstaffe's  works  were  mostly  pamphlets,  though  some 
of  them  very  lengthy  pamphlets.  A  full  list  of  them 
will  be  found  in  the  article  on  him  in  the  'Dictionary 
of    National    Biography,'    written    by    his     successor    at 

Ipswich  praedict.  in  praesentia  mei  Eoberti  Duglas,  notrii  Pubci,  praesentibus 
etiam  tunc  et  ibidem  Honoratissimo  Domino  Henrico  Comite  de  Clarendon, 
Georgio  Hickes  sacrse  the.  pro. 
(Signatures) 
Guliehnus  Norvic.  Fran.  Eliensis.  Thos.  Petriburgensis. 

L.S.  L.S.  L.S. 

(Witnesses) 

Clarendon. 
Georgius  Hickes 


118  THE   NONJUKORS 

St.  Margaret  Pattens,  who  is  an  expert  in  all  Nonjuring 
matters.  Wagstaffe  appears  to  have  led  a  very  quiet, 
domesticated  life.  He  left  behind  him  a  large  family, 
one  of  whom,  his  second  son,  Thomas,  who  was  at  least 
the  equal  of  his  father  in  abilities  and  attainments,  will 
come  before  us  in  connection  with  the  later  Nonjurors. 

On  the  death  of  Wagstaffe,  October  17,  1712,  all  the 
deprived  Fathers   being  now  dead,  there  was  only  one 
bishop  of  the  '  faithful  remnant '  left.     If,  then,  the  Non- 
juring  succession  was  to  be  kept  up,  there  was  no  time  to 
be  lost.     One  of  the  objections   to  the  consecrations  of 
Hickes  and  Wagstaffe  was  that  they  might  well  have  been 
postponed,    as   there   was   quite   a  sufficient   number  of 
bishops  still  living,  and  likely  to  live,  to  ordain  the  few 
who  were  likely  to  seek  ordination.     But  now  there  was 
only  Dr.  Hickes  remaining,  and  he  an  invalid.     If  he  were 
to  die  suddenly  the  society  would  be  virtually  dissolved, 
for,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Nonjurors,  a  Church 
without  a  bishop  would  be  no  Church  at  all.     And  as 
Hickes  also  held  in  the  most  uncompromising  form  the 
view  that  a  Church  governed  by  usurping  bishops  (as  he 
still  deemed  those  of  the  Established  Church  to  be)  was 
no  Church  at  all,  he  was  conscientiously  bound  to  have 
recourse  to  extreme  measures,  if  necessary,  to  avert  the 
catastrophe.     He  was  left  stranded,  so  far  as  England  was 
concerned ;  but  there  was  the  sister  Church  of  Scotland, 
and  there  were  two  bishops  of  that  Church  ready  at  hand, 
who  lived  in  London  and  identified  themselves  in  every 
way  with  the  English  Nonjurors.      Three  bishops  were 
necessary  for  a  canonical  consecration,  so  Hickes  called  in 
the    aid    of    Bishops   Archibald    Campbell    and    James 
Gadderar,  and  on  the  Ascension  Day,  June  '•'>,  L718,  with 
their  assistance,  in    his   own   oratory  in  Scroop's  Court 
(afterwards  Union  Court),  in   the  parish  of  St.  Andrew's, 


FUETHBE  CONSECRATIONS  IN  1713  119 

Holborn,  consecrated  Nathanael  Spinckes,  Jeremy  Collier, 
and  Samuel  Hawes  to  be  '  bishops  at  large,' l  without  any 
titular  sees  like  those  of  Thetford  and  Ipswich,  from  which 
he  and  Wagstaffe  had  taken  their  titles,  and  without  any 
reference  to  the  Suffragan  Bishops  Act  of  Henry  VIII. 
The  consecrations  were  witnessed  by  '  Heneage,  4th 
Earl  of  Winchilsea,  and  Henry  Gandy.' 

The  question  is  of  so  great  importance  in  a  history  of 
the  Nonjurors  that  it  will  be  best  to  give  in  the  text 
what  the  consecrators  themselves  said  about  it.  The 
exordium  of  the  '  Apographum  '  of  Collier's  consecration 
may  be  translated  thus  : 

In  the  name  of  the  Lord.  Amen. 
We,  George  Hickes,  Catholic  Bishop  of  the  English  Church 
and  Suffragan  of  Thetford,  Archibald  Campbell,  and  James 
Gadderar,  Catholic  Bishops  of  the  Scottish  Church  (depending 
on  the  fear  of  God)  knowing  that  all  the  Catholic  Bishops  of 
the  English  Church  except  the  aforesaid  George  Hickes  have 
fallen  asleep  in  the  Lord — mindful  both  of  the  office  committed 
to  us  by  the  Lord  and  also  of  the  uncertainty  of  human  life, 
and  desiring  to  provide  for  the  welfare  of  the  English  by  per- 
petuating in  a  direct  line  that  sacred,  Catholic  untainted  succes- 
sion of  faithful,  &c. 

The  same  form,  mutatis  mutandis,  was  used  in  the 
'  Apographa  '  of  Hawes  and  Spinckes,  and  in  later  con- 
secrations. 

Two  questions  naturally  arise  with  regard  to  these 
consecrations :  (1)  What  jurisdiction  had  two  bishops  of 
the  Scotch  Church  in  the  Province  of  Canterbury  ?  (2) 
What  authority  had  '  the  Suffragan  Bishop  of  Thetford  ' 
(as  Hickes  is  expressly  called  inthe  '  Apographum ')  when 
his  diocesan  was  dead  ?  Curiously  enough,  the  first 
question  does  not  appear  to  have  been  raised  at  the  time, 
though  it  has  naturally  been  raised  by  later  historians. 
1  '  Ecclesiffi  Anglicanas  Episcopi  Catholici.' 


120  THE   NONJURORS 

But  the  latter  was  boldly  grappled  with  by  the  Nonjurors. 
Indeed,  it  could  hardly  fail  to  be,  because  it  was  one  of 
the  very  questions  raised  by  Dodwell  in  his  '  Case  in  View  ' 
(1705)   and  his    'Case   in  View,    now   in    fact'    (1709\ 
Dodwell  had  been  a  great  name  among  the  Nonjurors, 
and  they  were  bound  to  justify  themselves  against  the 
objections  he  had  raised  by  anticipation.     It  was  argued, 
then,  '  that  a  Suffragan  Bishop  did  not  act  purely  by  the 
authority  of  his  Diocesan  but  by  the   authority  of  the 
whole  College  of  Bishops,  that  after  the  Diocesan's  death, 
when  the  district  devolved  to  the  College  of  Bishops,  he 
had  an  equal  right  to  act  in  his  suffragan  see  under  them, 
as  he  had  before,  it  being  committed  to  his  care  by  them 
as  well  as  by  the  Diocesan,  as  a  curate  by  the  Bishop  as 
well  as  by  the  Vicar  :  That  a   Suffragan   Bishop's  power 
was  not  limited  by  his  Diocesan's,  so  as  that  he  could  not 
act  duly  in  his  Suffragan  See,  but  durante  bene  placito  of 
the  Diocesan  ;  for  that  it  would  be  less,  and  more  pre- 
carious than  that  of  a  Vicar,  which  cannot  be  supposed ; 
but,  if  it  was  limited  by  his  life  as  to  the  rest  of  his  Dio- 
cese, yet  after  his  death,  it  could  be  no  longer  so  limited  ; 
the  Suffragan  Bishop  shared  with  his  Colleagues  in  the 
whole  vacancy ;    and   so  long  as  the  Diocesan  see  was 
vacant,  he  had  a  right  to  exercise  his  episcopal  powers  in 
the  whole  Diocese,  he  being  before  appointed  a  Coadjutor 
in  that  Diocese  by  the  College,  and  that  right  must  con- 
tinue in  him  till  the  Catholic  College  (of  which  he  was 
one)  constituted  a  new  Diocesan :  That  all  Bishops  axe 
equal  with  respect  to  their  Consecration  :  That  supposing 
a  Suffragan  Bishop  was  no  longer  the  Diocesan's  Suffra- 
gan than   during    the    time  limited  by  the   Commission 
given  by  the  Diocesan,  yet  lit  was  a  Catholic  Bishop  still, 
and  a  member  of  the  Episcopal  College  as  much  as  any  : 
That  as  the  Suffragan   Bishop  was  a   Bishop  at  large, 


JEEEMY  COLLIEE  121 

equal  to  one  of  the  Apostles  being  only  such,  in  the  Unity 
of  the  Episcopal  College  he  had  a  just  share  in  the  right 
and  government  of  all  vacancies  that  happen  by  death, 
schism,  or  heresy,  by  Popish  superstitious  worship,  or 
any  other  practical  desertion  of  the  Catholic  Unity  and 
Communion.'1 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  such  defences  of  the  new 
consecrations,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  men  selected 
for  consecration  were  worthy  of  their  new  office.  Two 
out  of  the  three  were  really  distinguished  men,  who  would 
have  been  an  honour  to  the  episcopate  in  any  age ;  in 
point  both  of  abilities,  attainments,  and  achievements,  and 
also  of  piety  and  earnestness,  they  were  the  equals  of  any 
two  bishops  in  the  Established  Church  that  could  be 
named.  The  third  is  not  so  well  known,  but  all  that  we 
hear  of  him  is  to  his  credit.  It  was  no  enviable  post  to 
which  they  were  appointed ;  it  brought  them  no  emolu- 
ment whatever,  and  not  even  barren  honour,  for  they  were 
not  addressed  or  spoken  of,  even  by  their  friends,  by  their 
titles,  but  simply  as  Mr.  Collier,  Mr.  Spinckes,  and  Mr. 
Hawes  ;  they  had  not  even  the  satisfaction  of  feeling  that 
they  were  pleasing  their  (temporal)  master  '  over  the 
water,'  for  the  Chevalier  distinctly  disapproved  of  the  new 
consecrations.     But  let  us  turn  to  their  history. 

Jeremy  Collier  (1650-1726)  is  a  man  whose  merits  have 
been  very  generally  recognised.  Even  Lord  Macaulay, 
who,  as  was  natural  in  the  panegyrist  of  William  III., 
wholly  disapproved  of  the  Nonjurors'  attitude,  and  who 
differed  from  Collier  as  widely  as  possible  on  all  points  of 
theology,  yet  generously  owns  that  '  he  was  in  the  full 
force  of  the  words,  a  good  man ,'  ;  and  that  '  he  was  also 

1  See  a  pamphlet  or  volume  (it  fills  nearly  200  pages)  entitled  Mr. 
DodiuelVs  Case  in  Vieiu  tlwroughly  considered,  or,  The  Case  of  Lay  De- 
privations and  Independency  of  the  Church  (in  Spirituals)  set  in  a  true 
light,  by  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England. 


122  THE   NONJURORS 

a  man  of  eminent  abilities,  a  great  master  of  sarcasm,  a 
great  master  of  rhetoric.' '  Dr.  Johnson,  who,  though  he 
loved  to  talk  Jacobitism,  was  strongly  prejudiced  against 
the  Nonjurors,  praises  Collier's  '  religious  zeal  and  honest 
indignation ' ;  2  and,  in  our  own  time,  Dr.  Hunt,  who  has 
quite  as  little  sympathy  with  the  Nonjurors  generally  as 
either  Lord  Macaulay  or  Dr.  Johnson,  bears  his  testimony 
to  'the  genuine  sincerity  of  Collier's  mind.' 3 

Collier  is  a  very  notable  illustration  of  the  remark 
made  in  a  previous  page,  that  the  Nonjurors  devoted 
their  abilities  and  attainments  not  exclusively  to  the  Non- 
juring  cause,  but  to  the  interests  of  religion,  morality, 
and  learning  generally.  He  is  far  better  known  as  the 
courageous  and  successful  purifier  of  the  stage,  when  it 
sorely  needed  purifying,  the  champion  of  that  too  lightly 
regarded  type  of  English  clergyman,  the  domestic  chap- 
lain, more  numerous  in  his  time  than  in  ours,  and  as  the 
industrious  ecclesiastical  historian  when  ecclesiastical 
historians  were  rare,'1  than  as  a  Nonjuring  bishop. 

Of  his  early  life  we  have  an  account  from  his  own 
pen  ;  for  there  is  little,  if  any,  doubt  that  the  notice  of 
him  in  the  '  Biographia  Britannica '  was  in  its  early  part 
written  by  himself.  From  it  we  learn  that  he  was  the 
son  of  Jeremy  Collier,  who  was  master  for  some  time  of 
the  free  school  at  Ipswich  ;  that  he  was  born  at  Stow 
Qui,  or  Quin,  in  Cambridgeshire,  where  his  mother's 
family  'possessed  considerable  interest':  that  he  was 
educated  under  his  father,  and  went  in  1669  as  '  a  poor 

'  History  of  England,  oh.  xiv.  (vol.  ii.  p.  100).  Lord  MmcuuIuy  also 
^ives  a  vivid  sketch  of  Collier  in  Ins  brilliant  essay  on  'The  Comic  Drama- 
tists of  the  Restoration.' 

2  Lives  of  the  Poets,  ii.  1(J1 :  '  Congreve.1 

'  Religions  Thought  in  England,  ii.  81  (Hi.  vii.h 

1  '  We  have  only  two  historians  of  our  National  Church,'  said  Bishop 
Warburton,  '  Collier,  the  Nonjuror,  and  Fuller,  the  .Jester,'  as  if  a  Nonjuror 
and  B  .Fester  stood  uhoui  on  the      .me  level  of  absurdity 


JEEEMY   COLLIEE  123 

scholar  '  to  Cains  College,  Cambridge  ;  that  having  taken 
his  degree  he  was  ordained  deacon  in  1676  by  the  Bishop 
of  Ely  (Dr.  Gunning),  and  priest  in  1677  by  the  Bishop  of 
London  (Dr.  Compton)  ;  that  he  then  '  officiated  for  some 
time  at  the  Countess  Dowager  of  Dorset's,  at  Knowle 
in  Kent ' — (an  interesting  episode,  for  it  shows  us  that 
the  champion  of  domestic  chaplains  had  been  a  domestic 
chaplain  himself) — '  from  whence  he  removed  to  a  small 
rectory  at  Ampton,  near  St.  Edmund's  Bury,  in  Suffolk ' ; 
that  '  after  he  had  held  this  benefice  six  years  he  re- 
signed it,  and  came  to  reside  in  London  in  1685,  and  was 
some  little  time  after  made  lecturer  at  Gray's  Inn ;  but 
the  Eevolution  coming  on  the  public  exercise  of  his 
function  became  impracticable.'  This  last  clause,  how- 
ever, does  not  mean  that  Collier  was  laid  on  the  shelf ;  on 
the  contrary,  he  became  after,  and  in  consequence  of  the 
Revolution,  far  more  of  a  public  man  than  ever.  "With 
characteristic  boldness  he  at  once  rushed  into  the  fray ; 
and  it  was  he  who  made  '  the  first  attack  upon  the 
principles  of  the  Eevolution,' '  with  that  formidable 
instrument,  his  pen.  It  came  in  the  form  of  a  short 
tract,  entitled  '  The  Desertion  Discussed  in  a  Letter  to  a 
Country  Gentleman,  1689.'  Short  as  the  attack  was,  it 
was  very  telling ;  for  Collier's  clear  and  logical  mind  per- 
ceived at  once  that  the  whole  question  hinged  upon  the 
matter  in  discussion.  If  King  James  had  really  deserted 
his  subjects  they  must  of  course  shift  for  themselves  as 
best  they  could,  and  small  blame  could  attach  to  them  for 
submitting  to  a  ruler  who,  at  any  rate,  would  remain  at 
the  helm  of  government.  But  Collier  utterly  denied  the 
fact  of  the  desertion — in  other  words,  the  major  premiss 
of  the  argument ;  and  he  followed  up  his  pamphlet  by 
others  of  a  like  tendency ;  the  result  of  it  all  was  that  he 

1  Lathbury,  History  of  the  Nonjurors,  p.  113. 


124  THE  NONJURORS 

was  imprisoned  in  Newgate  for  six  months,  and  then 
released  without  being  brought  to  trial.  His  imprison- 
ment did  not  in  the  least  check  his  activity  in  opposing 
the  Eevolution  settlement;  and  in  1692,  when  it  was 
reported  that  he  and  another  Nonjuring  clergyman  named 
Newton '  had  gone  to  Komney  Marsh  with  a  view  to  hold- 
ing communication  with  the  King  over  the  water,  they 
were  both  arrested  and  imprisoned  in  the  Gate  House. 
As  no  evidence  could  be  found  against  them  they  were 
admitted  to  bail ;  but  Collier's  sensitive  conscience  made 
him  fear  that  by  giving  bail  he  would  be  recognising  an 
authority  which  he  considered  unlawful,  so  he  voluntarily 
gave  himself  up,  and  was  again  imprisoned  for  a  short 
time.  He  employed  that  time  in  writing  a  defence  of  his 
conduct  in  a  tract  dated  '  From  the  King's  Bench,  1692,' 
and  bearing  the  suggestive  title,  '  The  Case  of  Giving  Bail 
to  a  Pretended  Authority  Examined.'  He  followed  this 
up  with  « A  Letter  to  Sir  J.  Holt,'  the  Chief  Justice,  to 
whom  he  had  surrendered  himself.  He  was  soon  released 
from  prison  at  the  intercession  of  his  friends. 

But  in  1696  he  involved  himself  in  more  serious 
trouble  ;  in  conjunction  with  two  other  Nonjuring  clergy- 
men, Mr.  Cook  and  Mr.  Snatt,2  he  attended  to  the  scatfold 
Sir  William  Parkyns  and  Sir  John  Friend,  who  had  been 
condemned  to  death  for  their  supposed  complicity  in  a 
plot  to  assassinate  William  III.,  and  publicly  absolved 
Sir  William  with  the  imposition  of  hands.  This  proceeding 
not  unnaturally  aroused  the  greatest  indignation.  The 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Dr.  Tenison)  and  eleven  of  his 
suffragans  who  happened  to  be  in  London  published  a  paper 
condemning  it  in  the  strongest  trims.  Collier's  part  in  the 
matter  cannot  be  better  described  than  in  his  own  words: 

1  George  Newton,  rector  of  Oheadle  and  TOJai  of  P» 
1  Bhadraoh    Oook,   Leoturex  <>f    Islington  [?].     William   Bnatt 
bendary  of  Ohiohe  ter  and  vicar  of  Ouokfleld, 


JEEEMY  COLLIEE  125 

Sir  William  Parkins  (whom  I  had  not  seen  for  four  or  five 
years)  after  his  Tryal,  desired  me  to  come  to  him  in  order  to  his 
Preparation  for  another  world.  I  accordingly  visited  him  in 
Newgate,  as  I  thought  myself  obliged  by  my  character  to  do. 
I  had  [at  ?]  first  two  days  liberty  of  conversing  with  him  in 
private.  Afterwards  I  was  not  permitted  to  speak  or  pray  with 
him  alone,  a  keeper  being  always  present.  At  last  even  this 
Permission  was  recalled,  so  that  I  could  never  see  him  from 
Wednesday,  April  1,  till  Friday  at  the  place  of  execution.  Sir 
William  being  under  expectation  of  death  from  the  time  of  his 
sentence  had  given  me  the  State  of  his  Conscience,  and  there- 
fore desired  the  solemn  Absolution  of  the  Church  might  be  pro- 
nounced by  me  to  him  the  last  day.  And  understanding  I  was 
refused  admittance  on  Friday  morning,  he  sent  word  that  he 
would  gladly  see  me  at  the  place  of  execution.  I  went  there, 
and  gave  him  the  Absolution  he  requested,  it  being  impractic- 
able for  me  to  do  it  elsewhere.  This  Office  I  performed  word 
for  word,  as  it  stands  in  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick.  And  now 
where  lies  the  great  crime  of  all  this  ?  When  a  man  has 
declared  his  sorrow  for  all  the  faults  and  miscarriages  of  his 
life,  and  qualified  himself  for  the  privilege  of  Absolution,  with 
what  justice  can  it  be  denied  him  ?  Ought  not  dying  persons 
to  be  supported  in  their  last  agonies,  and  pass  into  the  other 
world  with  all  the  advantage  the  Church  can  give  them  ?  I  am 
surprised,  so  regular  a  proceeding  as  this  should  give  so  much 
offence  and  make  so  much  noise  as  I  perceive  it  has  done. 
Some  people  I  understand  are  displeased  at  the  Office  being  per- 
formed with  the  Imposition  of  Hands.  Now  this  is  not  only  an 
innocent,  but  an  ancient  ceremony  of  Absolution.  [He  then 
proves  it.]  Others  think  it  a  strange  presumption  to  admit  a 
Person  charged  with  so  high  a  crime,  to  the  benefit  of  Absolu- 
tion. With  submission  this  is  concluding  a  great  deal  too  fast. 
Are  all  people  damned  that  are  cast  in  a  capital  Indictment  ? 
If  so,  to  what  purpose  are  they  visited  by  Divines  ?  Why  are 
they  exhorted  to  repentance,  and  have  time  allowed  them  to  fit 
them  for  death  ?  But  if  they  may  be  acquitted  hereafter,  not- 
withstanding their  condemnation  here  ;  if  they  be  recovered  by 
recollection,  by  repentance  and  resignation,  why  should  the 
Church  refuse  them  her  Pardon  on  earth,  when  she  believes  'tis 
passed  in  Heaven  ?  The  Power  of  the  Keys  was  given  for  this 
purpose,  that  the  Ministers  of  God  might  bind  or  loose,  as  the 
disposition   of  the   Person  required.      The   latter   I  sincerely 


12C  THE  NONJURORS 

believed  to  be  Bir  William's  case.  I  judged  him  to  have  a  full 
right  to  all  the  privileges  of  Communion.     And  therefore  had 

i  him  Absolution  upon  his  request  I  had  failed  in  my 
duty,  end  gone  against  the  authority  hoth  of  the  ancient,  and 
of  the  English  Church.  I  could  not  do  it  in  private,  or  I  should 
have  done  SO.1 

1  9,  1696.  Jer.  Collier. 

He  published  a  Further  Defence,  dated  April  21, 1696, 
in  which  he  dwelt  more  at  length  on  the  ceremony  of 
the  Imposition  of  Hands,  on  which  the  bishops,  rather 
foolishly,  had  laid  special  stress.  Having  referred  to  a 
similar  incident  which  had  occurred  at  the  execution  of 
Mr.  Ashton  in  1690,  and  remonstrated  touchingly  with  the 
bishops  on  '  the  unkind  reflections  and  tragical  language 
of  the  Declaration,'  he  concludes  :  'However,  their  extra- 
ordinary usage  has  done  me  the  honour  of  an  opportunity 
to  forgive  them,  which,  I  thank  God,  I  heartily  do.' 

But   this  was  not  the  last  of  it.     He  wrote  a  third 

.  entitled  '  A  Reply  to  the  Absolution  of  a  Penitent 

ing  to  the  directions  of  the  Church  of  England,'  in 

which  he  answers  the  objection  raised  that  '  Sir  William 

OWn'd  bis  being  privy  to  the  intended  assassination.'    This 

objection,  is  my  opinion,  was  by  far  the  gravest  of  all, 

and  Collier  does  not  appear  to  me  to  have  answered  it 

quite  as  clearly  as  he  might  have  done.     The  absolution 

mn   publicly,  and   there  was  no  public  confession 

oi  d  ]>■  hi  i:x .  .     Collier  pleaded,  rightly  enough,  that  the 

m;i1  of  confession  was  aacred;  be  also  drew  a  perfectly 

right    distinction    between    Church    censures  and  civil 

punishments.     But  he  does  not  dwell  upon  this  latter 

point  with  that  clearness  and  fulness  with  which  Leslie, 

.  does  in  hi    '  B    ale  and  Pontificate  ' ;  and  1 

cannot  Bee  why  he  should  not  have   insisted,    in    his   deal- 
er William  I'arkins  m  the  pllM 
of  execution,  Ajinl  :t. 


JEEEMY  COLLIEE  127 

ings  with  Sir  William,  that,  if  the  absolution  was  to  be 
public,  the  confession  of  repentance  must  be  public  too. 
At  any  rate,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  whole  incident  did 
very  great  damage  to  the  Nonjuring  cause.  It  gave  a 
disagreeable  impression  that  the  Nonjurors  thought  lightly 
of  the  detestable  and  thoroughly  un-English  crime  of 
assassination.  That  Collier  detested  it  from  his  heart, 
and  never  did,  and  never  would,  countenance  it,  is 
indubitable.  But,  unlike  himself,  he  did  not  make  this 
as  clear  as  he  should  have  done.  He  suffered  severely  for 
his  indiscretion.  While  his  colleagues,  Cook  and  Snatt, 
after  a  short  imprisonment  in  Newgate,  were  released, 
Collier,  owing  to  his  scruples  about  giving  bail,  absconded, 
and  was  outlawed  ;  and  an  outlaw  he  remained  to  the  end 
of  his  life.  His  outlawry  indeed  was  ignored,  and  he  was 
able  to  return  to  his  ordinary  avocations ;  but  it  was  an 
unpleasant  situation  for  any  man  to  be  in.  He  regularly 
officiated  at  the  Nonjurors'  Oratory  in  Broad  Street, 
where,  it  is  said,  '  he  was  assisted  by  the  Bev.  Samuel 
Carte,  father  of  the  historian.' '  But  this  must  be  a 
mistake.  Samuel  Carte,  father  of  the  historian,  was  a 
beneficed  clergyman  to  the  end  of  his  long  life,  but  he  had 
two  sons,  Thomas  and  Samuel,  both  Nonjurors  ;  and  it 
was  surely  Samuel  Carte  the  brother,  not  Samuel  Carte 
the  father,  of  the  historian  who  assisted  Collier. 

After  the  death  of  Hickes,  in  1715,  Collier  was  beyond 
all  question  the  most  prominent  man  among  the  Non- 
jurors, and  Hickes's  mantle  would,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
have  fallen  upon  him.  But,  alas !  it  was  soon  to  be  a 
divided  family  of  which  he  was  the  natural  head.  Under 
any  circumstances  the  prospects  of  the  Nonjurors  would 
probably  have  sunk  with  the  sinking  chances  of  the 
Stuart  cause ;  but  the  decline  was  greatly  accelerated  by 
1  See  Notes  and  Queries  for  October  26,  1850. 


128  TIIE   NONJURORS 

fcheil  internal  disputes  about  the  '  Usages.'  It  is  probable 
that  these  disputes  would  never  have  arisen  if  Hickes's 
life  had  been  spared  ;  but,  even  if  they  had,  the  later 
Nonjurors  regarded  him  with  such  absolute  confidence 
that  his  word  would  have  been  law  with  them,  and  he 
might  have  settled  the  matter  as  he  pleased.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  hardly  fair  to  lay  the  whole  blame  of  the 
division  upon  Collier,  and  still  less  fair  to  hint,  as  was 
not  obscurely  hinted  by  his  opponents,  that  it  was 
Collier's  ambition  to  hold  the  first  place  which  originated 
the  unhappy  controversy.  He  did  hold  the  first  place ; 
he  was  in  every  way  Hickes's  proper  successor  as  Metro- 
politan, so  to  speak,  of  the  Nonjurors;  and  when  he 
signed  himself,  as  we  shall  find  he  afterwards  did, 
'  Primus  Anglo-Britannia3  Episcopus,'  he  only  claimed 
what  from  the  Nonjurors'  point  of  view  was  his  due. 
To  the  outer  world  he  was,  perhaps,  even  better  known 
than  Hickes  had  been,  and  was  certainly  more  regarded 
by  that  world.  Outsiders,  who  have  scarcely  anything 
but  blame  for  Hickes,  have  scarcely  anything  but  praise 
for  Collier.  But,  looking  at  the  matter  from  the  inside, 
tin  whole  aspect  is  changed.  The  Nonjurors  never  had, 
and  probably  under  no  circumstances  would  have  had, 
the  Bame  reverence  for  Collier  that  they  had  for  Hickes. 
Of  course  the  antecedents  of  the  two  might  make  a 
difference.  The  man  who  had  held  a  deanery  and  refused 
a  bishopric  m  the  pre-Bevolution  Church,  and  who  had 
been  on  the  most  intimate  terms  with  the  deprived 
Fathers  themselves,  would  naturally  have  more  weight 
than  one  who  WSS  not  thus  connected  with  the  past. 
I '-'it,  apart  tr..ni  this,  Ilirkcs  seems  to  have  had,  what 
Collier  had  not,  the  art  ol  governing  men.  The  Non- 
bad  do  objection  to  the  phrase,  which  was  often 
(  ommunioo  of  Dr,  Biokes,'  but  they  resented 


NATHANAEL   SPINCKES  129 

the  idea  of  being  '  The  Conimunion  of  Mr.  Collier.'  Much 
more  will  have  to  be  said  about  Collier  both  in  connection 
with  the  '  Usages '  and  with  the  '  Literature  of  the  Non- 
jurors.' At  present  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  was  an 
honour  to  the  Nonjurors,  whether  they  appreciated  it  or 
not,  to  have  such  a  man  as  Jeremy  Collier  among  their 
bishops.  The  only  man  who  could  in  any  way  have 
competed  with  him  for  '  the  Primacy  '  was  another  of  the 
bishops  who  was  consecrated  with  him. 

Nathanael  Spinckes  (1653-1727)  has  been  described 
by  a  high  authority  as  '  in  no  way  inferior  to  Collier  in 
learning  or  ability.' 1  Perhaps  that  is  putting  the  case 
rather  strongly;  at  any  rate  he  was  not  so  brilliant  a 
writer.  But  the  fact  is,  one  cannot  compare  the  two  men, 
for  they  belonged  to  different  types  of  mind.  There  were 
always  two  types  among  the  Nonjurors,  one  of  which 
was  represented  by  Ken,  Kettlewell,  and  Law,  the  other 
by  Hickes,  Collier,  and  Leslie  ;  and  Spinckes  belonged 
to  the  former  type.  That  peculiar  beauty  of  character 
which  we  term  '  saintliness  '  was  their  leading  feature, 
and  it  was  conspicuous  in  Spinckes.  He  was  essentially 
a  learned  man,  and  a  man  of  varied  accomplishments,  and 
he  was  by  no  means  disinclined  to  enter  the  lists  of  con- 
troversy. He  wrote  five  separate  treatises  on  the  Eoman 
Controversy  of  a  strongly  anti-Koman  character ; 2  one 
against  the  French  Prophets,  a  set  of  fanatics  who  made 
a  great  sensation  in  England  in  the  early  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century ;  one  against  that  very  able  latitu- 
dinarian,  Benjamin  Hoadly,  and  several  against  '  the 
Usagers.'  He  was  an  accomplished  linguist,  being  a 
proficient  in  Greek,  Latin,  Anglo-Saxon,  and  French, 
and  having  some  knowledge  of  the  Oriental  languages. 

1  Lathbury,  History  of  the  Nonjurors,  p.  365. 

2  See  Hearne's  Collections  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  i.  27,  30. 


13o  THE   NONJURORS 

IIiv  broth(  r  Nonjurors  had  so  great  confidence  in  him  as 

mn,  that  they  engaged  him  to  translate  into  Greek 
the  proposals  of  union  which  they  sent  to  the  Greek 
Church;  and  he  had  so  high  a  reputation  for  general 
knowledge  thai  he  is  said  to  have  been  called  in  to  assist 
in  the  writing  or  editing  of  such  different  kinds  of 
works  as  Grabe's  'Septuagint,'  Kewcourt's  'Kepertorium,' 
Laurence  Howell's  '  Synopsis  Canonum,'  Archbishop 
Potter's  '  Clemens  Alexandrinus,'  and  Walker's  '  Suffer- 
ings of  the  Clergy.'  But  he  was  even  better  known  by 
his  contemporaries  for  his  goodness  than  for  his  erudition, 
iind  he  is  chiefly  remembered  by  posterity  for  his  devo- 
tional works,  which  will  be  noticed  in  their  proper 
place.  Spinckee  was  always,  and  rightly,  regarded  as  one 
of  the  chief  saints  of  the  Nonjuring  community.  When 
that  rather  worldly  (to  put  it  mildly)  sympathiser  with 
the  Nonjurors,  Samuel  Pepys,  applied  to  Robert  Nelson 
to  recommend  him  a  spiritual  guide  from  among  the 
Nonjuring  clergy,  Nelson  selected  Spinckes,  thinking 
probably  thai    a  very  spiritually  minded  man  was  best 

to  deal  with  such  a  case.  Dr.  Hickes,  with  whom 
lie  was  brought  into  very  close  relationship  when  the  two 

fellow  chaplains  to  the  Duke  of  Lauderdale,  had 
tin-  highest  opinion  of  him.  After  one  of  the  accounts  of 
cration  it  is  added,  'and  it  was  known  to 
I ■«■  l»r  Hirkrs'  declared  and  repeated  judgment  that  no 
man  understood  Church  discipline  better,  or  was  better 
qualified  to  be  ■  Church  Governor  than  Mr.  Spinckes.'  ' 
This  is  borne  out  by  the  warm  testimony  which  Hickes 

toBpinckes'fl  merit-  in  the  Preface  to  his  'Thesaurus.' 

Mr.  Lathi  :  lie  us  that  'it  lias  been  remarked  in 

bo  hia  consecration  as  a  bishop,  "happy  would 

!  i  t&xai  to  Tkt  Sick  " 

ndll 


NATHANAEL  SPINCKES  131 

it  have  been  for  any  diocese  had  he  been  legally  appointed 
to  it." ' x  His  career  before  the  Revolution  had  been  that 
of  the  ordinary  English  clergyman.  He  was  born  at 
Castor,  in  North  Hants,  where  his  father  was  rector,  and 
educated  under  a  neighbouring  rector,  Samuel  Morton,  of 
Haddon,  until  he  went  to  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  in 
1670 ;  in  1673  he  migrated  to  Jesus,  where  he  was  elected 
scholar  on  the  Rustat  foundation.  Having  received  Holy 
Orders,  he  acted  as  chaplain,  first  to  Sir  Richard  Edge- 
combe at  Mount  Edgecombe,  and  then  to  the  Duke  of 
Lauderdale  at  Petersham.  On  the  duke's  death  in  1682, 
he  became  curate  and  lecturer  at  St.  Stephen's,  Walbrook; 
in  1685  he  was  presented  by  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of 
Peterborough  to  the  rectory  of  Peakirk-cum-Glinton, 
where  he  married ;  and  in  1687  he  became  a  prebendary 
and  rector  of  St.  Martin's  at  Salisbury.  Of  course  he  lost 
all  his  preferments  when  he  refused  the  oaths,  and  he 
was  for  a  time  in  straitened  circumstances.  He  is,  like 
"Wagstaffe,  an  instance  of  a  Nonjuror  who  had  recourse 
to  literary  activity,  when  practical  activity  was  denied 
him.  He  published  nothing  before  the  Revolution,  but 
after  that  event  his  pen  was  very  busy  until  his  death. 
He  bore  an  active  part  in  Kettlewell's  scheme  for  the 
relief  of  the  distressed  clergy,  was  brought  with  the  rest 
before  the  Privy  Council,  and  was  afterwards  chiefly 
entrusted  with  the  management  of  the  fund.  John 
Kettlewell  and  he  were  kindred  spirits,  and  it  is  no  wonder 
that  they  were  friends  to  the  last,  when  they  received 
the  Holy  Communion  together  at  Kettlewell's  deathbed  ; 
and  Spinckes  was  at  least  equally  intimate  with  Hickes. 
Robert  Nelson  was  also  his  friend,  and  bequeathed  him 
a  hundred  pounds.  Beneath  his  portrait  inserted  in  the 
fourth  edition  of  his  '  Sick  Man  Visited '  is  this  inscrip- 

1  History  of  the  Nonjurors,  p.  365. 

e.  2 


132  THE   NONJURORS 

tion  :  '  The  Rev.  Mr.  Spinckes.  This  very  eminent  divine 
, ,  nerable  of  aspect,  orthodox  in  truth,  his  adversaries 
being  judges.  He  had  uncommon  learning  and  superior 
judgment.  His  patience  was  great,  his  self-denial  greater, 
his  charity  still  greater.  His  temper,  sweet  and  im- 
movable beyond  comparison.'  The  latter  part  of  this 
description  is  amply  borne  out  by  facts.  It  is  said  that  he 
never  made  a  personal  enemy.  Epitaphs  are  not  always 
to  be  trusted ;  but  the  following  elegant  epitaph  on 
Spinckes  '  in  the  burial-ground  of  St.  Faith's  on  the  north 
side  of  St.  Paul's,'  where  he  was  interred,  really  seems  to 
say  no  more  than  the  truth  : 

Depositum 

Viri  plane  reverendi 

Nathanaelis  Spinckes,  A.M. 

Ortu  Northamptoniensis 

Academia  Cantabrigiensis 

Ecclesiae  Anglican©  Pr.  dignissimi, 

Amicis,  patriae,  erudite-  orbi, 

XVI II.  Jul.  MDCCXXVII. 

Abrepti. 

Erat  ille  ingenio  miti, 

Vultu  placidissimo  : 

Rem  Christianam 

Scriptis  tuebatur  luculentis, 

Luoulentiori  ornabat  ezemplo. 

Crederes  antiquorum  Patrum 

Bt  mores  et  dootrinam 

In  nostrum  Theologam, 

Nupero  quasi  miraoulo, 

Transfaso8. 

Bforitar 

Amid  etatis  Beptuagesimo  Quarto, 

[niqua  fortuna  aon  diutarnioi 

Seel  major. 

Proximam  huio  kerrani  ocoupal  Dorothea  oonjux. 

r'  survived  him  only  seven  days.    He  took,  as  we 
■hail  fin.],  i  leading  part  in  the  'Usages'  controversy, 


SAMUEL  HA  WES  133 

which  elicited  much  hot  feeling  and  many  hot  words; 
but  there  was  not  a  word  written  by  Spinckes  which  was 
unworthy  of  a  Christian  gentleman ;  and  though  much 
strong  language  was  written  about  others,  I  cannot  find 
one  word  reflecting  upon  Spinckes. 

Of  the  third  bishop,  who  was  consecrated  in  1713,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  little  is  known.  From  the  nature  of 
their  position  the  Nonjurors  were  doomed  to  obscurity. 
Even  Hickes,  Collier,  and  Spinckes  are  not  nearly  so  well 
known  as  from  their  talents  and  attainments  they  would 
have  been  if  they  had  taken  the  oaths.  And  the  quiet  suf- 
erers  for  conscience'  sake  were  sure  not  to  attract,  as  they 
probably  would  not  desire,  the  notice  of  their  fellow-men. 

Samuel  Hawes  (d.  1722)  belonged  to  this  class.  He 
graduated  at  Trinity  College,  Oxford  (B.A.  1672,  M.A. 
1676),  and  in  1686  became  rector  of  Braybrooke,  near 
Market  Harborough,  and  domestic  chaplain  to  Lord 
Griffin  of  Braybrooke,  succeeding  as  rector  a  distinguished 
man,  Dr.  John  Mapletoft.  Through  the  kindness  of  the 
present  rector  of  Braybrooke  (the  Eev.  J.  Kidgway  Hake- 
will)  I  have  received  a  letter  which,  though  mainly  of 
local  interest,  throws  some  light  upon  the  life  and  mind 
of  Mr.  Hawes,  and  also  an  extract  from  Mr.  Hawes's  will 
so  far  as  it  relates  to  Braybrooke.  The  letter  is  from 
a  Mr.  Whyles  to  '  Kev.  Mr.  Chapman,  Eector  of  Bray- 
brooke,' and  runs  thus : 

Welsboume:  Nov.  20,  1721. 

S1', — You  may  too  justly  suspect  yfc  I  had  forgot  my  promise 
to  you  in  enquiring  of  Mr.  Hawes  ab*  the  Eights  of  yr  Living 
since  you  have  heard  nothing  from  me  in  so  long  a  time.  Mr- 
Hawes  was  removed  from  his  House  in  Town  &  gone  down 
with  Ld  Winchelsea  to  live  wth  him  in  Kent  &  I  knew  not 
'till  very  lately  how  to  write  to  him,  wch  I  did  ab*  a  Month  agoe 
&  on  Friday  last  I  rec'1  the  following  Answer  from  him  bearing 
date  the  9th  Inst,  relating  to  your  affair  wch  I  have  here  transcribed. 

'As  to  my  living  of  Braybrooke  I  am  fully  satisfy 'd  yl  the 


THE  NONJURORS 

iocs  not  enjoy  \vf   of  Right  belongeth  to  him,  nor  hath 

since  the  Reformation.     For  that  Estate  helonging  to  a  Griffin 

who  was  Attorney  Gefial   at    yl   Reformation    &    had    a  vast 

He  swallow'd  up  the  Rectory,  &  made  the  Church  a 

liar)  Cure,  upon  very  low  Terms,  &  so  it  continued  'till 
Si i    Edward  Griffin's  time,  who  was  my  L'!s  Father.     But  in 

ign  of  Kg  Charles  1st  when  favr  was  shew'd  to  Church 
men  AB^  Laud  heing  ready  to  assist,  one  Hill  .  .  .  tooky  Title 
of  the  Crown  upon  y*  Lapse  &  sued  Sir  Ed.  Griffin  for  the 

and  recovered  them.  .  .  .  Dr  Mapletoft  my  imediate 
predecessor  who  had  a  good  Temporal  Estate  never  resided,  but 
went  on  as  I  think  his  Predecessor  one  Dr-  Crawford  a  Scotch- 
man did  A  I  followed  the  example  of  Dr  Mapletoft  set  me, 
because  I  was  earnestly  pressed  to  continue  in  the  family  & 
so  never  resided.  However  I  began  to  search  as  soon  as  I 
could  get  opportunity,  but  found  yl  all  the  Papr>  relating  to  }-t 
Suite  ab'  y  Tythes  &  Glebe  were  lost,  in  short,  the  Revolution 
coming  on  I  was  thrown  out  &  soe  an  end  put  to  all  my 
i  odeai  '■  M'  Chapman  having  purchas'd  y1'  Advowson  or 
Patronage  of  the  church  His  interest  will  encourage  him  to 
to  recover  his  dues  &  I  wish  him  good  luck  tho'  I  can 
ilu  him  no  service.' 

The    following   is   an    extract    from   the   Braybrooke 

'•■r : 

L722.  A  copy  of  the  Rev.  Mr-  Sam1  Hawes  last  will  sent 
to  me  bj  Bis  Executor  Mr-  Henry  Gandy  of  Scroop  Court  in 
Bolboora  London  as  far  it  concerns  his  Legacy  to  y  Parish 
of  Braybrooke  in  rTorthtonshire. 

•  [torn  I  (Samuel  Bawes  of  BastweU  in  Kent)  Give  to  y 

Parish    of  B  in   y  County  of  Northton  &  dio. 

hoi  which  in  right   1  am  Parson  A  RrtheSumof 

l'ift>  Pounds  to  be  added  to  y  fifty  pounds  given  to  j    said 

the  Bevfid  !>'  Mapletoft  to  be  put  out 

»l  Interest  and y  [nteresi  u>  be  for  .v  towards y°  maintenance 

P  appointed  bj  y  Etootor  for  y  time  being  to 

Children  of   y   said   Parish  to    read   a   write  &  y 
Church  Catechism.' 

,|h'  Bev.  M1  Bam1  Bawes  above  mentioned  died  in  y* 
Lord  i  i 

Attest,  (l  bj  Bolt  Cb  lpmah 

ooke. 


SAMUEL  HAWES  135 

This  all  tallies  with  what  we  gather  from  slight  notices 
elsewhere,  and  is  more  illustrative  of  our  subject  than  may 
at  first  sight  appear.  The  '  house  in  town '  agrees  with 
a  notice  of  the  Nonjuring  oratories  in  London  ;  '  Mr. 
Hawkes ' — evidently  a  misprint  for  Mr.  Hawes,  for  there 
was  no  Nonjuring  clergyman  named  Hawkes — '  officiated 
for  some  time  at  his  own  house  opposite  S.  James's 
Palace.'1  His  'going  down  to  live  with  Lord  Winchelsea 
in  Kent '  is  just  what  one  would  expect.  Heneage  Finch, 
fourth  Earl  of  Winchilsea,  the  owner  of  Eastwell,  was  a 
well-known  patron  of  the  Nonjurors ;  he  was  present  at 
the  two  next  consecrations  on  St.  Paul's  Day,  1715-6, 
when  Hawes  was  one  of  the  consecrators,  and  would 
naturally  like  to  have  a  Nonjuring  clergyman  in  residence 
at  Eastwell.  '  Mr.  Henry  Gandy  '  had  been  consecrated 
bishop  by  Hawes  himself  in  1715-6,  took  the  same  line 
as  he  did  in  the  '  Usages  '  controversy,  and  was,  in  short, 
just  the  person  one  would  expect  to  be  his  executor. 
But  far  more  important  than  these  coincidences  are  the 
illustrations  afforded  of  the  attitude  of  the  Nonjurors 
generally.  It  will  be  observed  that  though  Hawes  claims 
to  be  '  in  right  the  Parson  and  Hector  '  of  Braybrooke,  he 
is  not  only  perfectly  friendly  with  the  incumbent  de  facto, 
but  ready  to  help  him  in  every  way,  gives  him  all  the 
information  he  can  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  living, 
wishes  him  '  good  luck '  in  his  endeavours  to  establish 
those  rights,  and  in  his  will  puts  the  appointment  of  the 
teacher  who  is  to  profit  by  the  little  sum  he  leaves  entirely 
in  his  hands,  or  that  of  the  rector  for  the  time  being. 
Another  Nonjuror,  William  Law,  acted  on  the  same 
principle  in  regard  to  his  much  larger  benefactions  to 
King's  Cliffe.     And  in  both  cases  the  object  of  the  bene- 

1  See  a  very  interesting  paper   on  the  Oratories  of  the  Nonjurors  in 
Notes  and  Queries  for  October  26,  1850. 


136  THE  NONJURORS 

factors  was  to  help  the  Church.  The  children  at  Bray- 
brooke  were  to  be  taught,  not  some  new  formulary  of  the 
Nonjurors,  but  the  old  Church  Catechism.  In  fact,  it  is 
another  instance  of  the  fact  that  the  Nonjurors  meant  to 
be  thoroughly  loyal  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  that  if 
t  huy  were  at  variance  with  those  who  had  the  upper  hand 
in  it,  the  reason  was  that  they  verily  believed  those  men 
were  not  loyal  to  it.  Therefore  I  cannot  think  that  such 
terms  as  '  The  Nonjuring  Schism  '  or  '  The  Nonjuring 
Separation '  are  accurate ;  they  give  people  a  totally 
wrong  impression  ;  it  was  at  most  a  temporary  alienation 
which  was  sure  to  right  itself  in  time.  But  to  return  to 
Mr.  Hawes.  I  write  '  Mr. '  advisedly,  for  it  will  be 
observed  that  no  mention  of  the  word  '  Bishop  '  occurs  ;  he 
never  claims  the  title  himself,  and  it  is  never  given  him. 

The  only  writing  which  I  can  identify  for  a  certainty 
as  the  work  of  Hawes  is  a  paper  among  the  Eawlinson 
-MSS.  entitled,  'Considerations  what  a  Christian  is  to  do 
who  goes  into  a  Country  or  Place  where  the  Clergy  is 
Unwarrantable  or  the  Worship  Corrupt,  or  both.'  He 
founds  his  remarks  on  the  truth  that  '  a  Christian  is  bound 
i"  believe  in  One  Holy  Catholic  Church,'  and  expresses 
views  of  a  wry  pronounced  Church  type.  Then  he  argues 
t  attendance  at  'the  immoral  prayers,'  and  deals 
with  the  difficulty  of  Christians  who  think  that  they  ought 
under  any  circumstances  to  attend  some  public  worship. 

Borne  ^ I  people  grow  uneasy  out  of  fear  that  they  should 

live  like  Eeathens,  and  as  without  God  in  the  world,  if  they 
should  not  repair  to  some  place  of  publics  worship.  .  .  .  But  it 
is  not  Living  without  God  in  the  world,  but  plfaging  more 
firmly  to  him,  and  giving  proof  of  greater  reverence  and  regard 
kothe  Purity  and  Holiness  of  His  Divine  Nature,  .  .  .  Behold 
toobej  an  Sacrifice.  .  .  .  Elijah  at  the  brook  Gherith 

"  public  worship,  .  .  .  bet  good  Christians,  when  the} 
haven  \  Bemblys  where  our  Holy  Worship 


FEESH  CONSECEATIONS  IN   1715-6  137 

is  offered  up  by  a  Warrantable  Priesthood,  repair  to  their 
closetts  and  there  offer  up  such  Prayers  as  are  agreeable  to 
Almighty  God.  And  if  they  can,  let  thern  do  it  at  the  time  of 
the  Solemn  Assembly. 

Hawes  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  many  Nonjurors 
who  placed  themselves  under  the  guidance  of  Dr.  Hickes, 
for  in  one  of  the  manuscript  books  belonging  to  the  library 
of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  is  '  A  Letter  from  Mr. 
Dodwell  to  Mr.  Hawes,'  dated  February  14, 170f,  in  which 
Dodwell  argues  elaborately  against  continuing  the  separa- 
tion after  the  death  or  cession  of  the  deprived  Fathers. 
It  is  an  answer  to  a  letter  from  Hawes,  and  is  signed 
'  Yours  most  affectionately,'  so  Hawes  and  Dodwell  were 
evidently  friends.  Appended  to  the  letter  are  '  Kemarks 
by  Bp.  Hickes '  answering,  point  by  point,  all  Dodwell's 
arguments,  which  evidently  convinced  Hawes,  who  be- 
came a  Nonjuror  of  the  Hickes  type. 

Besides  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  his  will  there 
are  other  indications  that  Hawes  was  not  reduced  to  the 
same  straits  to  which  many  of  the  Nonjurors  were.  He 
could  afford  to  spend  money  on  books  ;  for  the  few  inci- 
dental notices  of  him  in  Hearne's  '  Collections '  are  in 
connection  with  book-buying ;  in  fact,  he  collected  a 
rather  valuable  library,  which  was  sold  in  1722  imme- 
diately after  his  death.  The  printed  catalogue  is  still 
extant;  it  is  entitled  '  Bibliotheca  Beverendi  DoctiqueViri 
Samuelis  Hawes,  nuper  defuncti ' ;  the  books  in  it  are  in 
Greek,  Latin,  English,  French,  Italian,  and  Spanish,  so 
Hawes  was  probably,  like  many  of  the  Nonjurors,  a  good 
linguist. 

After  the  death  of  Dr.  Hickes  at  the  close  of  1715  it 
was  thought  necessary  to  consecrate  two  new  bishops. 
'On  S.  Paul's  Day,  1715-6,  Dr.  T.  Brett  and  Mr.  H. 
Gandy,  M.A.,  were  consecrated  in  Mr.  Gandy's  Chapell 


133  THE   NONJURORS 

by  Mr.  Collier,  Hawes,  Spinckes,  Campbell  and  Gadderar.' 
Both  wen-  able  men,  and  the  former  a  very  distinguished 
one,  to  be  ranked  on  the  same  level  with  Hickes,  Collier, 
and  Spinckes. 

Thomas  Brett  (1GG7-1743)  differed  in  several  respects, 
both  in  his  circumstances  and  his  career,  from  most  of  the 
Nonjurors.  Like  Wagstaffe  he  seems  to  have  belonged 
to  what  would  now  be  called  '  a  county  family.'  At  any 
rate,  the  Bretts  had  long  been  settled  at  Wye,  in  Kent, 
but  whether  as  '  lesser  gentry  '  or  '  county  magnates  '  is 
not  clear.  His  father,  also  Thomas  Brett,  was  probably 
in  affluent  circumstances,  for  he  pulled  down  the  ancestral 
house  and  built  a  new  one  which  he  called  Spring  Grove, 
a  name  which  was  henceforth  associated  with  several 
generations  of  Bretts.  His  mother,  born  Laetitia  Boys, 
also  belonged  to  a  family  of  substance  at  Bettesh 
near  Sandwich.  The  future  bishop  was  educated  at 
Wye  Grammar  School  until  his  entrance  as  a  pensioner. 
m  L684,  at  Queens'  College,  Cambridge;  his  father  re- 
moved him  for  a  time  on  account  of  his  extravagance, 
bnt  1m:  soon  returned,  and  migrated  to  Corpus  Christi  in 
L689.  He  was  ordained  deacon  in  1690  and  became 
onrate  of  Folkestone.  He  had  no  difficulty  about  taking 
tlit'  oaths,  for  he  inherited  the  Whig  traditions  of  his 
family  ;  and  it  was  not  until  he  left  Folkestone  and  went 
;|  lecturer  bo  tslington  that  any  change  in  his  views 
;  there,  under  the  influence  of  the  vicar  of  Islington, 
Mr.  Gery,  he  became  a  Tory  and  a  High  Churchman, 
though  of  course  not  as  yet  with  any  tendency  to  become 
a  Nonjuror,  because  the  man  who  influenced  biro  himself 
111111  ■  benefice  in  the  'Revolution  church."  On  the 
fo*th  of  bis  father,  Brett  was  persuaded  by  his  mother 
'"  return  to  Burin  Grove,  wh.  dc<  be  al  &rsl  Berved  the 
ehurch  of  Great  Chart,  and  then  became  curate  of  Wye, 


THOMAS  BEETT  139 

living  no  doubt  in  his  own  house  at  Spring  Grove  in  the 
parish.  He  had  now  married  the  daughter  of  Sir  Nicholas 
Toke,  and  this  bound  him  still  more  closely  to  the  county. 
On  the  death  of  his  mother's  brother  he  succeeded  his 
uncle  in  the  family  living  of  Betteshanger ;  and  in  1705 
Archbishop  Tenison  gave  him  the  living  of  Kuckinge, 
a  plain  proof  that  his  new  principles  were  not  yet  pro- 
nounced, or,  at  any  rate,  known,  for  Tenison  would  never 
have  promoted  an  advanced  High  Churchman.  He  was, 
however,  tending  in  that  direction,  probably  to  the  alarm 
of  his  family  ;  for  his  kinsman,  Chief  Baron  Gilbert,  strove 
to  bring  him  back  to  the  family  principles  ;  but  the  effect 
was  the  exact  opposite  of  what  was  intended ;  and  one 
can  readily  understand  that  the  sort  of  arguments  which 
a  Whig  lawyer  would  use  would  not  be  likely  to  convince 
a  man  who  was  certainly  influenced  by  High  Church 
doctrines.  Some  years  before  this  Brett  had  found  the 
Abjuration  Oath,  which  was  a  stumbling-block  to  many, 
a  hard  dose  to  swallow,  but  he  managed  to  swallow  it ; 
and  as  late  as  1710,  so  far  from  intending  to  join  the 
Nonjurors,  he  actually  traversed  their  position  in  his 
work  on  Church  Government.  He  was,  however,  on  the 
verge  of  a  change ;  and  those  who  can  read  between  the 
lines  may  detect  traces  of  it  even  in  this  his  latest  utter- 
ance as  a  complier.  The  Sacheverell  trial  clinched  the 
matter,  and  he  determined  that  he  would  never  take  the 
oaths  again.  In  1711  he  preached  a  sermon  '  On  the 
Eemission  of  Sins,'  in  which  the  High  Church  doctrine 
of  priestly  authority  was  advocated  in  the  strongest  terms ; 
it  created  a  great  sensation,  and  was  only  just  saved  from 
the  censure  of  Convocation  by  the  efforts  of  Dr.  Atterbury, 
who  was  then  Prolocutor. 

When  George  I.  came  to  the  throne,  and  an  Act  of 
Parliament  in  1715  obliged  all  persons  to  take  the  oaths 


140  THE  NONJURORS 

afresh,  Brett  declined  to  do  so,  and  lost  his  livings.  He 
did  not,  however,  join  the  Nonjurors  at  once,  but  remained 
in  lay  communion  with  the  Established  Church.  Then 
Dr.  Hickes,  who  was  always  on  the  alert  to  make  con- 
verts commissioned  Archibald  Campbell  to  write  and 
!■  monstrate  with  him  on  his  inconsistency.  He  did  not 
yield  at  once ;  he  first  '  read  Dodwell ' — that  is,  no  doubt, 
the  '  Case  in  View '  and  the  '  Case  in  Fact ' — '  on  the 
point,  but  thought  his  arguments  weak,  so  he  resolved  to 
surrender  himself  to  Hickes,  and,  upon  a  penitential  con- 
fession, was  received  into  his  communion,  July  1,  1715  ; 
Hickes  henceforward  had  great  influence  over  him.'  This 
is  the  account  of  Nichols,1  and  Brett's  own  description 
agrees  with  it,  except  in  the  last  clause.  He  tells  us  that 
'  he  quitted  the  Public  Communion  and  joined  himself  to 
the  Communion  of  Bishop  Hickes,'  but  adds  that  Hickes 
'  was  ill  when  he  received  him  to  Communion,'  and  that 
'  it  was  the  last  time  he  saw  him.' 2  Dates  and  facts,  of 
course,  bear  out  Brett's  account.  In  July  1715  Hickes 
Bled  for  death,  and  before  the  year  closed  he  died. 
But  Nichols  is  perfectly  right  in  saying  that  Hickes  '  had 
great  influence  over  him ' ;  that  influence  commenced 
before  he  became  a  Nonjuror,  and,  as  a  Nonjuror,  he 
c<  rtainly  strove  to  follow  the  course  which  he  thought 
Hickes  would  have  taken.  He  refers  to  him  often,  and 
always  with  the  deepest  reverence,  both  in  the  works 
which  he  wrote  before  and  also  in  those  which  he  wrote 
after  he  had  joined  'the  communion  of  Bishop  Hickes.' 

Breti  had,  happily,  some  little  property  of  his  own  to 
fill  hack  upon,  so  he  was  not  reduced  to  straits.  He  still 
lived  in  his  <>wn  house  at  Spring  Grove,  and  ministered 
every  Sunday  t<>  a  little  congregation  which  assembled 

tenth  Century,  i.  »<>7  '.». 
I  Pn  tax  in  i'  7  Liturgies. 


THOMAS   BEETT  141 

there,  until  he  was  presented  at  the  Assizes  for  keeping  a 
conventicle.  The  passing  of  an  Act  of  Indemnity  enabled 
him  to  continue  his  ministrations,  but  he  thought  it  safer 
to  vary  the  place  of  meeting,  so  he  used  to  go  sometimes 
to  Canterbury,  sometimes  to  Faversham,  where  part  of 
his  congregation  lived.  He  was  still,  however,  exposed  to 
annoyances ;  when  he  visited  a  sick  person,  who  was,  no 
doubt,  one  of  his  congregation,  at  Faversham,  the  parish 
priest  complained  to  Brett's  old  friend  and  patron 
Archbishop  Tenison,  as  diocesan ;  and  Tenison  told 
Brett  that  '  if  he  heard  any  more  complaints  he  should  be 
obliged  to  lay  them  before  the  King  and  Council.' l  In 
1729  he  obtained  leave  of  the  vicar  of  Morton  to  perform 
the  Burial  Service  in  his  church,  but  Lord  Townshend 
complained  to  the  archbishop,  who  '  ordered  the  Arch- 
deacon to  reprove  the  Vicar  of  Morton.'  As  the  utmost 
laxity  then  prevailed  about  the  conduct  of  Church  services, 
one  can  hardly  help  thinking  of  the  line  : 

Dat  veniam  corvis,  vexat  censura  columbas. 

Brett  was  twitted  by  both  Jurors  and  Nonjurors  with 
his  change  of  opinions.  He  had,  as  we  have  seen,  actually 
written  against  the  Nonjurors  as  late  as  1710  ;  but,  instead 
of  ignoring  the  past,  he  took  the  wiser  and  manlier  course 
of  publicly  owning  that  he  had  been  mistaken.  In  a 
postscript  to  the  Introduction  of  his  very  able  treatise  on 
1  The  Independency  of  the  Church  upon  the  State  as  to 
its  Own  Spiritual  Powers,'  published  in  1717,  he  writes  : 

Whereas,  in  the  Second  Edition  of  a  Book  called  'An 
Account  of  Church  Government,  &c.,'  which  I  published  in  the 
year  1710,  I  have,  Page  38  &c.  charged  the  Nonjurors  with  Con- 
venticling  and  Schism ;  I  do  here,  in  the  Face  of  the  World, 
recall  that  charge,  Retracting  (as  I  then  declared  I  should  be 
ready  to  do  upon  better  Information)  whatever  I  have  there,  or 

1  Nichols,  ut  supra. 


142  THE  NONJURORS 

anywhere  else,  laid  down  or  asserted  in  Opposition  to  my 

•  Practice,  or  in  Vindication  of  that  Compliance  to  which 

I  then  thought  it  my  duty  to  submit :    Referring  all  those  who 

misguided  by  the  Erroneous  Arguments  made  use 

upon  thai  Occasion  to  this  small  Treatise  of  the  Independency 

Church;  and  another  I  have  lately  published  entituled 

'  Dr.  Bennet's  Concessions  to  tJie  Nonjurors.'     In  which  they 

will  find  the  Reasons  and  Grounds  of  that  Accusation  sufficiently 

answered  &  confuted,  and  the  Nonjurors  vindicated  from  the 

Imputation  of  Schism.     And  to  this  End,  I  earnestly  entreat 

them  to  give  them  both  an  impartial  Reading. 

In  short,  he  appealed  from  Philip  drunk  to  Philip  sober, 
as  1  )r.  Sherlock  did  when  he  recanted  in  his  '  Case  of 
Allegiance  '  what  he  had  written  in  his  '  Case  of  Kesist- 
ance.'  I  do  not  doubt  the  sincerity  of  either  ;  but  there 
is  this  serious  difference  between  them :  that  Sherlock 
had  everything  to  gain,  Brett  everything  to  lose  by  re- 
ranting. 

The  National  Church  could  ill  afford  to  lose  such  men 
k8  Dr.  Brett,  whose  reading  and  tastes  supplied  just  what 
so  grievously  lacking  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
There  was  no  lack  then  of  great  divines  ;  in  fact,  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  there  ever  was  a  time  when  the 
general  truths  of  Christianity  were  more  powerfully  de- 
fended ;  but  liturgical  knowledge  was  not  one  of  its 
Strong  points  ;  indeed  it  was  hardly  regarded  as  a  matter 
<>f  study  at  all.  Good  Churchmen  were  content  to  praise 
'our  incomparable  Liturgy 'as  they  praised  'our  happy 
Establishment  in  Church  and  State,'  as  if  the  last  word 
had  been  -aid  ;  lax  Churchmen  who  were  dissatisfied  with 
th<  Prayer  Book  as  it  stood  could  only  Buggest  modern 
innovations  of  their  own.  Hut  Brett  had  really  studied 
antiquity,  especially  the  ancienl  liturgies;  and  his 
writings  are  authorities  on  the  subject,  even  to  the 
,  day.     lb'  was,  in  my  opinion,  far  and  away  the 

ithority  in  his  own  day,  though  he  was  not  always 


THOMAS  BEETT  143 

appreciated  as  such,  even  in  his  own  little  communion. 
It  is  rather  amusing  to  read  the  opinion  on  the  subject 
of  Matthias  Earbery,  a  very  pronounced  Nonjuror  and 
Jacobite,  who  had  known  Brett  •  when,'  he  says,  '  you 
was  a  formal  Jurant,  and  held  a  living  in  Eomney  Marsh,' 
and  also  afterwards,  •  when  you  invited  me  over  (I  cannot 
say  disputed  me)  into  the  Nonjurant  Church,  where  your 
learnedship  assured  me  only  salvation   was  to  be  had.' 
Brett,    it   appears,    had   pleaded   the   high    authority   of 
Dr.   Hickes,   as  sanctioning  the  study  of  Antiquity  and 
especially   the    ancient    liturgies.     '  Peace,'    replies    Mr. 
Earbery,  *  be  to  the  memory  of  that  great  man  !     I  could 
almost  blush  for  Indignation  to  see  a  man  of  his  learning 
harp  upon  a  few  ridiculous  Liturgies  and  call  them  the 
Universal  Practice  of  the  Primitive  Church.'  '     The  'few 
ridiculous   Liturgies '    were   those   bearing   the   not   un- 
honoured  names  of  St.   Clement,   St.  James,  St.   Mark, 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  St.  Basil,  &c,  on  which  Brett  had 
put   forth    a   most  valuable  work  this  very  year,  1720. 
For    his    pains   on   this    and   kindred   subjects   he    was 
labelled  a  papist,  and  it  was  currently  reported  that  he 
had  actually  gone  over  to  the  Boman  fold.     Whether  it 
was  worth  his  while  indignantly  to  deny  the  rumour  in 
print  as  he  did,2  perhaps  we  are  hardly  in  a  position  to 
judge.     It  was  a  common  charge  against  Nonjurors,  the 
conclusion  being  arrived  at  by  a  kind  of  process  of  ex- 
haustion.    The   eighteenth   century  mind  could   not  be 
made  to  understand  their  position.     They  were  not  proper 
*  Church-of -England  men  '  (a  favourite  expression   of  the 
day),  for  if  they  were  they  would  be  in  favour  of  'our 

1  Reflections  upon  Modern  Fanaticism.  In  tioo  Letters  to  Dr.  Brett, 
&c,  by  Matthias  Earbery,  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  1720. 

2  See  Dr.  Bretfs  Vindication  of  himself  from  the  Calumnies  Thrown 
upon  him  in  some  late  Newspapers,  wherein  lie  is  falsely  charged  with 
turning  Papist.    In  a  Letter  to  the  Hon.  Archibald  Campbell,  Esq.,  1715. 


14  1  THE  NONJURORS 

happy  establishment  '  ;  they  were  manifestly  the  very 
antipodes  of  Puritans  ;  they  were  not  Freethinkers  ;  on 
the  contrary,  they  wrote  some  of  the  most  valuable  works 
that  appeared  against  Deists,  Socinians,  and  other  types 
of  the  class.  Say  what  they  would,  they  must  be  papists  ; 
there  was  nothing  else  for  them.  Perhaps  their  position 
is  a  little  better  understood  now. 

Brett  was  an  accomplished  controversialist,  and  had 
the  rare  advantage  of  never  losing  his  temper,  and, 
consequently,  never  being  betrayed  into  the  use  of  lan- 
guage in  any  way  unbecoming  a  Christian  and  a  gentle- 
man. Like  his  brother  Nonjuror,  William  Law,  he 
generally  pitted  himself  against  strong  antagonists. 
Daniel  Waterland,  Joseph  Bingham,  and  Benjamin 
Hoadly  were  very  formidable  opponents.  Brett  mea- 
sured swords  with  them  all,  and  though  it  would  be  a 
bold  thing  to  say  that  he  vanquished  them  all,  it  may  be 
said  safely  that  they  all  found  him  a  foeman  worthy  of 
their  steel.  Nor,  papist  though  he  was  supposed  to  be, 
did  he  fail  to  express  views  which  were  strongly  anta- 
gonistic to  the  Koman  position.  In  Liturgiology,  which 
may  be  regarded  as  his  specialty,  he  distinctly  declares 
his  preference  of  the  Greek  and  Eastern  Liturgies  to  the 
Koman,  on  the  ground  that  the  former  were  more  in 
accordance  with  the  uses  of  the  Primitive  Church;  and 
Bfl  late  &8  L783  he  wrote  three  letters  to  John  Cotton  in 
favour  ol  the  Church  of  England  as  against  the  Church 
of  Rome,  fortifying  his  position  by  long  quotations  from 
Bramhall,  one  of  the  ablest  champions  our  Church  ever 
had.  Thomas  Bowdler,  the  descendant  of  a  Nonjuring 
family,  re-edited  these  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century  under  th<  title  of  '  Letters  relating  to  the  State 
of  the  Churoh  of  England  with  respect  to  the  Konian 
Church  both  in  her   Doctrine  and  Practice  l>\  Dr.  Brett,' 


THOMAS  BRETT  145 

and  a  brief  extract  from  his  Preface  is  worth  insert- 
ing :— 

The  following  Letters  were  printed  a  few  years  since  from 
MSS.  in  the  Editor's  possession,  on  account  of  a  revival  of  the 
charge  of  Romanism  against  the  Nonjurors  of  the  last  century, 
whose  whole  history,  together  with  the  recorded  sentiments  of 
some  of  the  greatest  note  among  them,  should  put  to  silence 
such  an  accusation.  .  .  .  They  sought,  like  our  Reformers,  to 
trace  the  stream  to  the  fountain  head,  and  to  be  primitive  in 
doctrine,  discipline  and  worship.  .  .  .  The  Nonjurors,  even  in 
the  day  of  weakness  and  decay,  when  discussing  anxiously  the 
nature  of  their  position,  and  the  course  which  they  should 
adopt,  never  turned  their  eyes  towards  Rome. 

Dr.  Brett  lived  on  to  this  '  day  of  weakness  and  decay,' 
and  he  never  turned  his  eyes  towards  Rome. 

Personally  Brett  seems  to  have  been  an  extremely 
amiable,  sociable  man.  The  historian  of  his  college, 
who  knew  him  well,  and  wrote  only  ten  years  after  his 
death,  represents  him  as 

a  learned,  pious,  and  indefatigable  author,  a  worthy,  orthodox 
member  of  the  Church  of  England  and  no  small  honour  to  her ; 
whose  works  are  a  clear  indication  of  his  writing  in  the  search 
of  truth,  which,  if  at  any  time  he  found  himself  deviating  from, 
he  always  took  the  first  opportunity  of  retracting  it  in  the  most 
public  manner.  In  private  life  he  was  a  dutiful  son,  an 
affectionate  husband,  a  kind  parent  and  a  true  friend.  His  con- 
versation was  ever  facetious,  good-natured  and  easy,  tempered 
with  a  becoming  gravity  without  moroseness,  and  so  well 
adapted  to  those  whom  he  happened  to  be  in  company  with, 
that  it  rendered  him  agreeable  to,  as  well  as  esteemed  by 
persons  of  all  ranks  who  had  the  pleasure  of  his  acquaintance.1 

Brett,  like  Hickes,  preserved  the  most  intimate  friend- 
ship with  men  outside  the  Nonjuring  communion,  and 
being  much  more  measured  in  his  language  he  never 
gave  offence  as  Hickes  did.  Perhaps  the  man  whom 
he  esteemed  more  than   any  other  was  John   Johnson, 

1  Masters'  History  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge. 

L 


146  THE  NONJURORS 

author  of  '  The  Unbloody  Sacrifice,'  generally  known  as 
'  Johnson  of  Cranbrook,'  because  he  held  for  many  years 
the  living  of  Cranbrook,  and  there  wrote  most  of  his  very 
valuable  works.  The  fact  that  Johnson  took  the  oaths 
and  continued  to  the  end  of  his  life  a  beneficed  clergyman 
in  the  Established  Church  did  not  in  the  least  interfere 
with  the  friendship  between  him  and  Brett.  They  were 
brought  together  in  many  ways.  Both  were  Kentish 
men  by  birth  and  education,  and  their  homes  in  after 
life,  the  one  at  Wye  and  the  other  at  Cranbrook,  were 
not  so  very  far  apart.  Brett  was,  as  we  have  seen,  curate 
of  Great  Chart,  and  Johnson's  mother  came  from  Little 
Chart.  Brett  and  Johnson  were  both  graduates  of  the 
same  college  at  Cambridge ;  both  held  the  same  Church 
vi.ws,  when  those  views  were  quite  out  of  fashion  ;  both 
were  attracted  by  the  same  studies,  and  investigated,  far 
more  deeply  than  most  men  of  their  day,  the  constitution 
of  the  Primitive  Church  in  general  and  its  Liturgies  (in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  term)  in  particular,  and  both 
produced  works  of  permanent  value  on  the  subject. 
Win  ii  Johnson  died  Brett  wrote  an  interesting  little 
sketch  of  his  life,  in  which  there  is  not  the  faintest  trace 
of  the  writer's  being  a  Nonjuror,  nor  the  faintest  hint, 
direct  or  indirect,  tliiit,  in  his  opinion,  Johnson  did  wrong 
in  conforming.  Lt  is  simply  the  testimony  of  one  good 
clergyman  to  the  work  of  another  good  clergyman,  with 
whom  he  agreed  exactly  in  every  particular,  and  is  a 
remarkable  illustration  of  what  has  been  already  said, 
that  the  Nonjuring  alienation  was  only  a  temporary  one, 
which  tune  whs  sure  to  heal.  But  Brett  was  very  firm 
and  consistent  in  his  own  Nonjuring  principles,  and  being 
a  strong  man  who  commanded  the  respect  of  his  family, 
he  handed  those  principles  down  to  his  children  and 
■  hildren ;   and   the    Bretta  of    Spring    Grove 


HENEY  GANDY  147 

were  among  the  very  last  who  still  remained  Nonjurors. 
Thomas  Brett  died  in  his  own  house  in  1743 ;  he  took  a 
leading  part  in  the  Usages  controversy,  in  the  overtures 
which  the  Nonjurors  made  to  the  Eastern  Church,  and  in 
the  general  literature  of  the  Nonjurors  ;  he  will  therefore 
meet  us  again  in  no  less  than  three  separate  connections. 
Henry  Gandy  (1649-1734),  who  was  consecrated  with 
Brett,  is  a  man  far  less  known,  and  has  left  us  no  works 
of  the  magnitude  and  importance  of  Brett's  ;  but  he  was 
recognised  in  his  day  as  one  of  the  ablest  controversialists 
among  the  Nonjurors,  and  his  writings,  which  are  extant, 
though  slight  in  bulk,  suffice  to  show  that  he  was  a  man 
of  considerable  ability.  He  is  described  in  an  obituary 
notice  as  '  the  Suffering  Son  of  a  Loyal  Father  who  sacrificed 
great  Ecclesiastical  Preferment  for  Conscience  sake,  as  may 
be  seen  on  page  69  of  Dr.  Walker's  "  History  of  the  Loyal 
and  Episcopal  Clergy."  '  He  was  a  fellow  of  Oriel  College, 
Oxford,  taking  his  B.A.  degree  in  1670  and  his  M.A.  in 
1674  ;  and  we  may  gather  that  he  continued  to  reside  at 
Oxford,  for  he  was  Senior  Proctor  for  the  University  in 
1683, l  and  he  was  evidently  well  known  to  Oxford  residents 
such  as  Thomas  Hearne,  Anthony  Wood,  Dr.  Bailey 
(President  of  Magdalen),2  and  Dr.  Charlett  (Master  of 
University).  He  then  became  rector  of  St.  Leonard's, 
Exeter,  which  post  he  held  until  the  Kevolution,  when  he 
refused  the  oaths,  and  lost  both  his  living  and  his  fellow- 
ship.3 Like  so  many  Nonjurors,  he  appears  subsequently 
to  have  settled  in  London,  and  in  1707  was  living  in 
Bartholomew  Square,  Old  Street.  But  he  may  have 
remained  for  a  time  at  Oxford,  for  we  hear  of  Anthony 

1  See  Wood's  Life  and  Times  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  iii.  44. 

2  He  appears  to  have  been  one  of  Dr.  Bailey's  executors.  See  Hearne's 
Collections,  ii.  16,  17. 

3  St.  Leonard's,  Exeter,  is  a  small  living,  which  he  could  hold  with  his 
fellowship— and  did.  See  Wood's  Life  and  Times  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  iii. 
384-5. 

i2 


148  THE  NONJURORS 

Wood  dining  with  him  there  in  1695  ;  '  and  Hearne  speaks 
of  him  two  or  three  times  up  to  1706,  as  if  he  were  still 
at  Oxford.  But  this  is  conjecture  ;  it  is  certain  that  he 
succeeded  Hickes  as  officiating  minister  at  the  Oratory  in 
Scroop's  Court,  Holborn.  In  this  chapel  he  was  himself 
consecrated  bishop,  and  afterwards  held  several  consecra- 
tions and  ordinations  therein.  He  took  an  active  part  in 
the  controversy  about  '  the  Usages,'  and  wrote  some 
able  and  vigorous  pamphlets  on  the  side  of  the  non-usagers. 
But  his  two  most  notable  works  were  answers  to  Dr. 
Higden  and  Mr.  Dodwell.  William  Higden  was  at  first  a 
Nonjuror,  but  afterwards  took  the  oaths.  In  defence  of 
his  change  of  opinions  he  published  in  1709  a  book  entitled 
'  A  View  of  the  English  Constitution,  with  respect  to  the 
Sovereign  Authority  of  the  Prince  and  the  Allegiance  of 
the  Subject.  In  Vindication  of  the  Lawfulness  of  taking 
the  Oaths  to  Her  Majesty,  by  Law  required.'  The  gist 
of  his  argument  was  that  the  Prince  in  possession  could 
lawfully  claim  allegiance,  and  it  is  said  that  he  was  induced 
to  publish  it  by  the  advice  of  Archbishop  Sharp,  who  read 
it  in  manuscript  and  approved  of  it.  It  was  a  formidable 
attack  on  the  Nonjurors,  and  was  answered  by  many,  but 
by  none  more  ably  than  by  Henry  Gandy.  His  answer 
was  published  anonymously,  and  the  authorship  was  not 
it  first  suspected,  even  at  Gandy's  own  University;  for 
Hearne,  who  has  no  fewer  than  three  separate  entries  in 
of  it,  pays  it  at  last  what  in  his  opinion  would  be 
the  highest  possible  compliment  by  saying  that '  he  believes 
tin  true  author  of  the  most  excellent  book  against  Higden 
to  be  the  illustriou  George  Hickes.1  But  he  soon  learned. 
tin'  truth,  for  lie  adds  in  a  bracket,  ('Mr.  Gandy  is  yc 
Author,  si  he  tells  me  himself.')  ■ 

'   'S''  l'""'l    With    Dr.    (Arthur)   Churl,  t.    (lli-in\)   Cumly, 

*  '     ■  b.  and  one  Harbin,  4o.'    Life  emd  Times,  iii.  490. 

<     Uixliuns,  ii.  884,  '2'JiO  and  S98. 


HENRY  GANDY  149 

Hearne  was  not  so  well  pleased  two  years  later  (1711) 
when  Gandy  brought  out  another  notable  publication,  also 
anonymously,  entitled  '  A  Conference  between  Gerontius 
and  Junius,  in  which  Mr.  Dodwell's  "  Case  in  View,  now 
in  Fact,"  is  Considered.'  Mr.  Dodwell  wrote,  of  course, 
to  justify  the  return  of  himself  and  the  Shottesbrooke 
group  to  the  Established  Church.  Gandy  would  rank 
him  with  Dr.  Higden  as  another  deserter  of  the  true 
cause.  One  would,  therefore,  expect  him  to  write  severely  ; 
and  so  he  does.  But  his  work  scarcely  deserves  all  the 
strictures  which  have  been  passed  upon  it.  At  any  rate, 
its  faults  are  faults  of  taste  rather  than  of  argument.  It 
was  unfortunate  for  Gandy's  credit  that  Dodwell  died 
unexpectedly  just  before  the  attack  upon  him  was  pub- 
lished, though  not  (as  the  Preface  expressly  asserts)  before 
it  was  written.  Dodwell's  '  Case  in  Fact '  was  published 
in  the  early  spring  and  Gandy's  in  the  summer  of  the 
same  year  (1711).  Dates,  therefore,  sufficiently  show  that 
Gandy  did  not  wait  till  the  lion  was  dead  before  he 
dared  to  kick  him.  But  it  would  have  been  more  delicate 
and  in  better  taste  to  have  postponed  the  attack,  and 
certainly  to  have  expunged  such  a  passage  as  this  : 

Mr.  Dodwell  was  a  very  learned  man,  and  has  done  very 
eminent  service  to  the  Church  of  God  by  some  of  his  former 
writings,  and  particularly  to  the  Church  of  England,  but,  all 
things  considered,  I  doubt  much  whether  by  some  of  his  later 
writings  he  has  not  done  more  hurt  than  good  to  the  Church, 
and  made  more  mischief  by  his  book  of  '  The  Natural  Mortality 
of  the  Soul '  than  all  his  learned  works  put  together  can  atone 
for. — [Preface.] 

There  are  also  many  personalities  in  the  book,  which 
under  the  circumstances  seemed  peculiarly  ungracious. 
Of  course  Dodwell's  friends — and  there  were  many  who 
loved  him  and  were  proud  of  him  when  living,  and  now 


150  THE   NONJURORS 

regarded  his  memory  as  sacred — were  up  in  arms  at 
once.  Hearne,  who  was  as  loyal  to  his  friends  as  he  was 
bitter  against  his  foes,  can  hardly  find  language  strong 
enough  to  express  his  abhorrence  of  the  book.  It  is 
rv  scurvy,  scurrilous  book ' ;  •  there  is  a  leaven  of 
envy  and  malice  throughout ' ;  '  the  book  is  despised  and 
not  approved  by  the  best  judges  in  Oxford.'  Of  the 
writer  he  speaks  more  in  sorrow  than  in  anger :  '  Mr. 
(landy  is  the  reputed  author ;  a  Non- Juror  and  an  honest 
man,  but  mightily  blamed  by  the  best  men  for  this  odd, 
scurrilous  book  ' ;  'I  am  very  sorry,  Mr.  Gandy  being 
otherwise  a  good,  conscientious  man.'  l  The  curious  part 
is  that  Hearne  himself  afterwards  took,  and,  indeed,  at 
this  very  time  was  virtually  taking  the  line  of  Gandy,  not 
that  of  Dodwell. 

Putting  aside  all  personal  questions  of  delicacy  and 
good  taste,  and  reading  in  cold  blood  the  works  of  Gandy 
and  Dodwell,  it  certainly  seems  to  me  that  Gandy  has 
the  best  of  the  argument.  The  evils  of  separation  which 
every  true  Churchman  feels,  and  the  utter  hopelessness  of 
this  separation  being  ended  by  the  Jurors  coining  round 
to  the  Nonjurors — that  is,  an  ever  increasing  majority 
coming  round  to  an  ever  decreasing  minority — make  one 
inclined  at  all  hazards,  short  of  sacrificing  truth  to  peace, 
to  sympathise  with  Dodwell.  But  was  it  possible  to 
reconcile  Dodwell  with  Dodwell? — in  other  words,  to 
i  concile  'The  Casein  View'  and  'The  Case  in  Fact' 
with,  say,  '  The  Case  of  Schism  '  or  '  The  Vindication  of 
the  deprived  Bishops/  or  with  numberless  passages  in 
Dodwell's  earlier  works?  This  inconsistency  Mr.  Gandy 
Beema  to  me  to  expose  with  remorseless  and  unanswerable 
Sis  contrast  between  what  'Mr.  Dodwell's  old 
Eriends  Bay,'  and  what  'his  new  friends  and   his   new 

1  B«  n. 'in ii. '    Ootttcl        i"  .f.  in  t.  Boo.),  H.  900,  SIS,  S80. 


HENEY  GANDY  151 

fathers  say '  is  racy  and,  it  may  be  added,  exasperating. 
Given  the  original  premisses,  and  the  only  logical  con- 
clusion to  be  drawn  from  them  is  surely  that  which 
Mr.  Gandy  draws.  Others  saw  this,  and  more  than  one 
referred  to  his  brochure.  An  able  volume  which  appeared 
shortly  afterwards,  entitled  '  Mr.  Dodwell's  Case  in  View 
thoroughly  considered,  or,  The  Case  of  Lay  Deprivations 
and  Independency  of  the  Church  (in  Spirituals)  set  in  a 
true  light  by  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,' 
specially  refers  its  readers  to  '  the  excellent  conference 
between  Gerontius  and  Junius  '  (pp.  171-2),  and  the  '  Pub- 
lisher '  of  the  posthumous  papers  of  Dr.  Hickes — that  is, 
no  doubt,  Dr.  Brett — in  his  address  '  to  the  Eeader,'  says 
that  '  Mr.  Dodwell's  principles,  on  which  the  separation 
was  to  be  closed,  were  directly  contrary  to  his  own 
former  Writings,  as  was  plainly  prov'd  in  "  The  Con- 
ference between  Gerontius  and  Junius."  '  l 

Among  Gandy's  other  writings  was  one  called  '  Jure 
Divino  ;  or  An  Answer  to  all  that  hath  or  shall  be  written 
by  Republicans  against  the  old  English  Constitution.' 
It  was  published  anonymously  in  1707,  and  takes  almost 
exactly  the  same  line  of  argument  which  Sir  E.  Filmer 
took  half  a  century  before.  He  also  wrote  several  tracts 
on  the  Usages  question,  to  be  noticed  presently  ;  and 
among  the  Eawlinson  MSS.  are  two  thick  volumes  of 
closely  written  matter  by  Mr.  Gandy,  all,  so  far  as  I  have 
read,  on  subjects  relating  to  the  Nonjurors ;  but  the 
handwriting  is  very  difficult  to  decipher,  and  I  must 
frankly  own  that  I  gave  up  the  task  in  despair. 

An  absurd  report  that  Gandy  towards  the  end  of  his 
life  '  turned  papist '  would  not  be  worth  mentioning  were 

1  See  Hickes's  Constitution  of  tlie  Catholick  CJmrch,  '  The  Publisher 
to  the  Eeader,'  p.  vii.  In  the  eighteenth  century,  what  we  call  '  Editor ' 
was  often  called  'Publisher,'  and  what  we  call  'Publisher'  was  called 
'  Bookseller.' 


152  THE  NONJURORS 

it  not  that  the  story  is  repeated,  and  not  contradicted,  by 
a  writer  who  is  a  popular  authority  on  the  eighteenth 
century.1  Gandy  died,  as  he  lived,  a  consistent  member 
ol  what  he  believed  to  be  the  true  Church  of  England. 
Two  very  appreciative  notices  of  him  appeared  in  the 
Daily  Post  and  the  London  Evening  Post,  February  27 
and  February  28,  1734.  In  the  former  he  is  described 
as  '  a  person  of  great  piety,  singular  modesty,  extremely 
temperate,  diligent  and  regular  through  the  whole  course 
of  his  life '  ;  and  both  notices  dwell  upon  his  learning 
and  abilities,  and  also  upon  his  conversational  and  social 
powers  generally,  which  he  retained  unimpaired  to 
extreme  old  age. 

Here  this  chapter  may  end.  The  bishops  of  the  new 
consecration  have  been  sketched  up  to  the  time  when  an 
unhappy  dispute  divided  the  Nonjurors  into  two  sections, 
a  dispute  which  was  never  properly  healed,  but  which  on 
the  contrary  led  to  further  subdivisions.  So  those  who 
were  consecrated  later  can  hardly  be  said  to  stand  on  the 
same  footing  as  those  who  preceded  them,  and  will  there- 
fore (with  one  single  exception,  which  will  appear  in  the 
next  chapter)  be  treated  in  connection  with  the  later 
Nonjurors. 

1  See  Noble's  Continuation  of  Granger,  iii.  173. 


153 


CHAPTEE   IV 

THE   NONJUEING   CLEEGY 

Although  the  Nonjuring  bishops  were  all  of  them  more 
or  less  capable,  and  some  really  distinguished,  men,  there 
were  among  '  the  inferior  clergy '  others  who  were  quite 
their  equals  in  piety,  learning,  and  general  reputation,  as 
the  present  chapter  will  show. 

Let  us  begin  with  one  who  was  called  to  his  rest 
within  five  years  of  his  deprivation,  but  the  sanctity  of 
whose  life  and  the  value  of  whose  writings  caused  his 
name  constantly  to  be  appealed  to,  so  that  '  he  being 
dead  yet  speaketh.' 

John  Kettlewell  (1653-95)  is  one  of  those  few  men 
who  are  recognised  by  all  parties  as  veritable  saints.  His 
naturally  sweet  and  amiable  disposition  was  purified  and 
elevated  by  Divine  grace.  Truthful  and  open  as  the 
daylight,  a  man  whom  you  could  trust  with  absolute 
confidence,  having  very  strong  convictions  of  his  own, 
yet  gentle  and  forbearing  to  those  who  disagreed  with 
him,  utterly  unselfish,  yet  quite  ready  to  assert  himself 
when  truth  required  it ;  modest  and  retiring,  yet  always 
to  the  front  when  any  good  was  to  be  done,  he  attracted 
all  who  came  into  contact  with  him  by  his  sheer  goodness. 

His  life  may  be  very  simply  and  briefly  told.  He 
was  associated  from  his  earliest  years,  and  all  through 
his  life,  with  George  Hickes,  being  born  in  the  same 
neighbourhood  and  educated  at  the  same  school  under 
the  same  master.     Thence  he  proceeded  to  St.  Edmund 


m  THE   NONJURORS 

Hall,  Oxford,  but  having  taken  his  degree  he  again  fol- 
lowed his  friend,  being  elected  to  a  Yorkshire  fellowship 
at  Lincoln  College.  Hickes,  who  was  then  a  distinguished 
fellow  of  Lincoln,  may  have  used  his  influence  to  procure 
the  election ;  but  Kettlewcll  had  no  need  of  any  favour ; 
he  might  well  have  stood  on  his  own  merits,  intellectual 
as  well  as  moral  and  social.  For  some  years  (1677-84) 
he  was,  as  his  friend  Hickes  had  been  before  him, 
college  tutor  at  Lincoln.  It  was  during  this  period  that 
he  published  his  first  work,  •  Measures  of  Christian 
Obedience,'  which  led  to  his  being  appointed,  first,  chap- 
lain to  the  Dowager  Countess  of  Bedford,  and  then  vicar 
of  Coleshill.  As  chaplain  to  the  countess  he  came  to 
know  Lord  William  Russell,  and,  in  spite  of  their  ex- 
tremely different  views  on  theology  and  politics,  he  won 
the  regard  of  that  unhappy  gentleman,  who  sent  an 
affectionate  message  to  him  from  the  scaffold.  At  Coles- 
hill  he  was  in  his  proper  element  as  a  parish  priest,  and 
his  relationship  with  the  chief  inhabitant  and  patron  of 
that  living  was  the  model  of  what  such  a  relationship 
should  be.  It  was  a  sad  pity  that  after  a  few  years  his 
career  at  Coleshill  was  cut  short  by  the  Revolution.  He 
had  not  a  moment's  hesitation  about  refusing  the  new 
oaths,  and  hewas  so  much  esteemed  in  the  neighbourhood 
that  be  carried  several  others  with  him  into  the  Nonjuring 
0  ni|>.  The  rest  of  his  brief  life  was  spent  in  and  about 
London.  He  lived  in  Gray's  Inn  Lane  near  his  old 
friend  Hickes,  and  Hickes's  neighbour,  Robert  Nelson. 
Mi'.  Secretan  bells  us  thai  KettleweU  took  the  place  of 
TillotflOD  as  Nelson's  bosom  friend,  and  it  was  at  Kettle- 
well's  instance  that  Nelson  began  to  write  his  'Com- 
panioc  bo  the  Festivals  and  Pasts  of  the  Church  of 
lui-land:        Nelson,    in    the    Preface    to    Kettlewell's 

p  81. 


JOHN   KETTLEWELL  155 

'  Five  Discourses  on  so  many  very  important  points  of 
Practical  Keligion/  drew  attention  to  two  of  his  leading 
characteristics : 

He  would  never  condescend  to  the  least  Artifice  to  disguise 
his  sentiments,  and  abhorred  a  lie  to  that  degree  that  the  day 
before  he  died,  dehorting  a  young  relation  from  all  vice,  espe- 
cially Lying,  he  said,  Do  not  tell  a  Lye,  no,  not  to  save  a 
World,  not  to  save  your  King,  nor  yourself.  ...  In  his  Con- 
troversial Writings,  he  never  treats  his  Adversaries  with  111 
Language,  Scorn  or  Contempt ;  nor  with  Personal  Reflections 
or  injurious  Surmises ;  nor  because  he  thought  they  erred  on 
one  point,  did  he  ever  endeavour  to  make  them  guilty  of  all ; 
nor  consecrated  any  unchristian  Heat  under  a  pretence  of 
defending  Truth.  This  meek  Servant  of  God  hath  happily 
steered  clear  of  that  dangerous  Eock,  whereupon  many  Learned 
(and  otherwise  good)  men  have  fatally  split.1 

'  He  was  certainly,'  writes  Bishop  Ken,  '  as  saintlike 
a  man  as  ever  I  knew  ' ; 2  and  Ken's  latest  and  fullest 
biographer  says  :  '  there  were  few,  if  any,  among  his  con- 
temporaries for  whom  Ken  had  a  more  profound  venera- 
tion. He  looked  to  him  more  than  to  any  other  as  his 
spiritual  director  in  the  confused  questions  of  the  time.' 3 
Bishop  Ken  was  brought  much  into  contact  with  Kettle- 
well  in  connection  with  the  relief  fund  for  the  distressed 
clergy,  which  was  suggested  by  Kettlewell  himself,  first 
privately  to  Bishop  Ken,  and  then  officially,  as  it  were,  to 
Bishop  Lloyd,  as  head  of  the  Nonjurors.  Kettlewell  did 
not  live  long  enough  to  see  the  result  of  his  benevolent 
scheme.  To  the  very  great  loss  of  the  Nonjuring  cause, 
he  was  prematurely  cut  off  when  only  forty-two  years  of 
age,  and,  by  his  own  desire,  was  buried  in  the  Church  of  All- 
hallows  Barking  (where  his  old  friend  Hickes  had  been 

1  See  Compleat  Collection  of  the  Works  of  John  Kettlewell,  with  Life 
prefixed,  &c,  i.  179. 

2  See  Ken's  letter  to  Robert  Nelson,  on  receipt  of  the  Life  of  Kettlewell, 
quoted  above.     Plumptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  102. 

s  Plumptre,  ii.  101. 


L56  THE  NONJURORS 

rector),  under  the  altar  rails,  in  the  grave  where  Laud's 
remains  had  lain  until  their  removal  to  St.  John's  College, 
Oxford.  Bishop  Ken  officiated  '  in  his  formalities,'  and, 
we  are  told,  '  prayed  for  the  King  and  the  Queens,'  that 
is,  of  course,  for  King  James,  Queen  Mary,  his  consort, 
and  Queen  Catherine,  widow  of  Charles  II.,  who  was 
still  living. 

Kettlewell  held  very  decided  opinions,  and  expressed 
them  very  decidedly.  He  took  an  independent  line  of  his 
own,  and  in  some  respects  seems  to  sanction  the  views 
and  conduct  of  one  section  of  the  Nonjurors,  sometimes 
those  of  the  other  section.  So  both  claimed  him  for  their 
own,  and  both  could  adduce  passages  from  his  writings 
which  favoured  their  own  views,  not  because  he  was 
inconsistent,  but  because  he  was  independent  and  judged 
each  case  on  its  own  merits. 

If  Kettlewell  was  one  of  the  saintliest,  Charles  Leslie 
was  one  of  the  ablest,  of  the  Nonjurors.  Dr.  Johnson's 
dictum,  '  Lesley  ivas  a  reasoner,  and  a  reasoner  who  was 
not  to  be  reasoned  against,'  1  may  be  cordially  accepted 
without  accepting  the  amazing  assertion  which  called  it 
forth,  that  no  other  Nonjuror  could  reason. 

Charles  Leslie  (1650-1722)  was  one  of  the  very  few 
Irishmen  who  joined  the  Nonjurors,  and  even  he,  though 
Irish  by  birth,  was  Scotch  by  extraction.  He  was  the 
son  of  John  Leslie,  successively  Bishop  of  the  Isles 
in  Scotland  and  of  Raphoe  and  Clogher  in  Ireland,  and 
was  educated  at  Knniskillen  Grammar  School  and  Trinity 
College,  Dublin.  He  then  entered  as  a  student  at  the 
Temple  and  was  a  barrister  for  ten  years,  in  which  pro- 
fession the  great  reasoning  powers  which  he  afterwards 
showed  were  no  doubt  developed  and  brained.  But  he 
kb  orbed  in  the  Btndy  of  divinity  than  of  Law, 

1  Boswt  II,  iv.  L96. 


CHAELES  LESLIE  157 

and  in  1680  he  received  Holy  Orders  and  became  curate 
of  Donagh,  the  parish  in  which  Glaslough,  the  family 
estate,  lay  (his  elder  brother,  the  owner  of  that  estate, 
being  rector).  As  most  of  his  parishioners  were  either 
Koman  Catholics  or  Presbyterians  he  had  not  much 
parochial  work,  and  he  employed  his  ample  leisure  in 
study.  In  1686  he  received,  through  the  influence  of 
Henry,  second  Earl  of  Clarendon,  always  his  good  friend, 
the  chancellorship  of  Connor,  an  office  of  some  dignity 
but  very  little  emolument.  It  also  gave  him  very  little 
work,  so  he  had  still  time  for  study.  At  the  Eevolution 
he  declined  to  take  the  prescribed  oaths,  lost  his  modest 
preferment  in  Ireland,  and  settled  in  England.  He  became 
private  chaplain  to  Lord  Clarendon,  and  officiated  in  several 
parish  churches  before  the  Act  of  Deprivation  came  into 
force,  and  afterwards  in  Nonjuring  chapels,  though  he 
never  ministered  regularly  to  any  congregation.  But  he 
was  from  the  first  a  leading  Nonjuror,  and  it  was  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  many  that  he  was  not  selected  as  one  of  the 
new  bishops  who  were  consecrated  in  1693-4,  He  was 
certainly  consulted  on  the  general  subject,  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  he  was  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  selections 
made.  He  wrote  his  very  able  '  Kegale  and  Pontificate  ' 
expressly  in  vindication  of  the  new  consecrations  then  in 
view.  Leslie's  settlement  in  London  brought  him  into 
closer  contact  with  the  little  knot  of  distinguished  Non- 
jurors in  and  about  the  metropolis.  "With  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  of  them,  Henry  Dodwell,  his  friendship 
dates  from  a  much  earlier  period.  Both  were  Irishmen, 
both  had  been  educated  at  the  same  university,  and  had 
been  early  thrown  together.  They  were  now  united  by 
closer  ties  as  members  of  the  '  suffering  remnant.'  Through 
Dodwell,  Leslie  became  intimate  with  Mr.  Francis  Cherry 
and   the  rest   of  the   group  at  Shottesbrook.     He   also 


158  THE  NONJURORS 

became  well  known  to  Robert  Nelson  and  George  Hickes. 
Leslie  was,  as  his  biographer  rightly  remarks,  a  man  of 
'  ardent  nature  and  solemn  convictions.'  '  His  '  ardent 
nature  '  led  him  to  express  himself  strongly,  especially 
when  writing  in  the  white  heat  of  controversy ;  his 
'  solemn  convictions  '  made  him  feel  that  such  writers  as 
Tillotson,  Burnet,  and  Hoadly  were  dangerous  to  the 
Christian  faith,  as  he  understood  it;  and  if  this  led  him 
into  intemperance  of  tone  and  words,  most  dearly  did  he 
pay  for  it,  for  not  only  did  he  suffer,  like  the  rest  of  the 
Nonjurors,  the  loss  of  all  his  worldly  prospects  as  a  clergy- 
man, but  also  banishment  from  his  home  as  an  outlaw. 
Leslie  was  as  strong  a  Jacobite  as  he  was  a  Nonjuror,  and 
was  often  a  medium  between  the  King  over  the  water  and 
the  Jacobites  on  this  side  of  it,  but  he  never  took  part  in 
any  of  the  Jacobite  conspiracies.  Like  Hickes,  he  did 
not  allow  differences  of  opinion  to  prevent  friendly  inter- 
course with  those  who  disagreed  with  him.  Of  all  classes 
of  religionists,  the  Quakers  were  those  against  whom  he 
wrote  most  vehemently  and  at  greatest  length ;  and  yet 
he  lodged  quite  comfortably  at  the  house  of  a  Quaker 
in  London,  and  resumed  his  lodging  there  after  he  had 
written  his  strongest  works  against  the  sect.  He  also 
drew  a  marked  distinction  between  those  members  of 
tlir  Revolution  Church'  who  conformed  to  it  through 
necessity  and  those  who  defended  it  as  the  best  of  all 
possible  Churches. 

There  LS    he  wrote]  a   distinction   to   be  made  (and   all   wise 

distinguish  them)  between  the  old  Church  of  England 
iiirn,  who  have  taken  tin'  oaths,  ami  comply,  ami  think  they 

can  acquit  themselves  hy  the  Constraint  and  Force  that  is  upon 

them,  but  still   retain    their  old   Principles  relating  to    the 

Monarchy  and  the  ( 'lunch,  who  are  far  the  host,  the  wisest,  the 
/•  ■       d  Writmgt  <.•/  Okarlet  Leslie,  i>y  ll.  J.  Leslie,  p.  395. 


CHAELES  LESLIE  159 

honestest,  and  the  most  numerous  of  the  complyers.  These, 
though  they  satisfy  themselves  in  a  compulsive  submission,  yet 
are  too  generous  and  honest  to  Deify  their  Chains,  and  glory  in 
their  Bondage.  A  man  who  hath  got  a  heavy  load  on  his  back, 
must  bear  it  as  well  as  he  can,  but  that  is  no  reason  to  celebrate 
the  burden,  and  extol  it  to  the  skyes,  and  give  immortal  honour 
to  that  which  cripples  him.  These,  therefore,  you  must  preter- 
mit, and  they  are  particularly  and  expressly  excepted  as  no  way 
concerned  in  what  follows.  But  then  for  your  St.  A — phs, 
your  Til — ns,  Ten — ns,  B — ts,  your  Sh — ks,  Pat — cks,  W — ks, 
El — ds.1  These  are  the  fine  sparks  that  do  all  the  Feats  we 
are  speaking  of,  who  first  swallow  the  morsels  of  Usurpation, 
and  then  dress  it  up  with  all  the  Gaudy  and  Eidiculous 
flourishes  that  an  Apostate  Eloquence  can  put  upon  it.2 

Leslie  acted  up  to  this  distinction  which  he  drew.  His 
own  brother  complied,  and  yet  Charles  remained  on  per- 
fectly friendly  terms  with  him.  He  wrote  an  able  defence 
of  the  complying  Bishop  Blackall  when  the  latter  was 
attacked  by  Bishop  Hoadly ;  and,  as  his  biographer 
points  out,  it  was  '  not  to  the  Nonjurors  as  such,  but 
to  the  Church  of  England  that  he  reconciled  his  con- 
verts.'3 

Leslie  had  happily  a  small — a  very  small — independ- 
ence of  his  own  ;  he  was  not,  therefore,  reduced  to  the 
extremities  that  some  were,  though  he  was  sometimes  in 
straitened  circumstances.  He  had  married,  soon  after 
his  ordination,  Jane,  daughter  of  Bichard  Griffith,  Dean 
of  Boss,  and  by  her  had  two  sons,  Bobert  and  Henry, 
the  former  of  whom,  though  in  a  very  inferior  degree, 
inherited  some  of  his  father's  talent,  and  one  daughter. 
Leslie  was  a  good  husband  and  a  good  father ;  and  if  he 

1  I.e.  Lloyd,  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  Tillotson,  Tenison,  Burnet,  Sherlock, 
Patrick,  Wake  (?),  Fleetwood. 

2  Remarks  on  some  late  Sermons,  and  in  particular  on  Dr.  Sherlock's 
Sermon  at  the  Temple,  December  30,  1694,  in  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  Hickes  drew  a  very  similar  distinction.  See  supra, 
p.  108. 

3  Life  and  Writings  of  Charles  Leslie,  &c,  by  B.  J.  Leslie,  p.  178. 


160  THE   NONJURORS 

felt  at  all  the  inconvenience  of  a  straitened  income  it  was 
<.n  Mrs.  Leslie's  account,  who  was  delicate  and  required 
change  of  air  and  scene.  It  was  a  distinct  loss  to  the 
Church  to  be  deprived  of  his  ministerial  services,  for  he 
had  the  reputation  of  being  a  good  preacher.  Lord 
Clarendon  tells  us  that  'he  made  a  most  excellent  sermon' 
at  the  chapel  of  Ely  House ;  ■  he  is  said  to  have  been  a 
very  acceptable  preacher  when  he  officiated,  as  he  did 
occasionally,  at  the  Nonjurors'  oratories  in  London  ;  and 
the  fire  and  vigour  of  his  writings  may  well  lead  us  to 
believe  that  he  would  be  a  pulpit  orator.  His  private 
ministrations,  too,  which  were  very  effective,  would 
indicate  that  he  would  have  been  a  good  parish  priest. 
His  pen  was  the  only  implement  he  could  use  in  be- 
half of  the  Church  which  he  loved,  and  that  he  used 
most  diligently,  as  will  appear  in  a  later  chapter.  His 
friend,  Dodwell,  gives  us  a  pleasant  picture  of  him  in  a 
social  light.  He  writes  to  Hearne,  November  23,  1708  : 
'  Mr.  Cherry  came  home  [to  Shottesbrook],  accompanyed 
with  the  excellent  Kehearser.2  We  enjoyed  his  delight- 
full  and  improving  conversation  'till  he  was  called  away 
from  us  by  another  office  of  charity  '  (he  had  been  minis- 
t<  ring  to  a  widow,  who  had  just  lost  her  husband).3 

But  soon  afterwards  an  event  occurred  which  changed 
tin-  whole  course  of  his  after  life.  Bishop  Burnet  made 
two  vehement  attacks  upon  him,  one  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  and  the  other  in  a  sermon  preached  at  Salisbury 
Iral,  170".),  on  the  anniversary  of  the  Restoration. 
Leslie,  under  the  nam  deplume  of  '  Misodolus,'  which, 

1  Diary,  p.  BOS. 

■    '■■'/.  ■  periodical  which  Leslie 
i.iy,  end  then  twice  a  week,  almost  exclusively  written 
!  ■'    nearly  fta    jeai     iiTni  B)   ,„  opposition  to  Tatohin'a 
Of  the  kind. 
*  BeeB  .  *w,  ii.  L52. 


CHAKLES  LESLIE  161 

however,  did  not,  and  probably  was  not  intended  to,  dis- 
guise the  real  author,  replied  in  a  tract  bearing  the  rather 
aggressive  title,  'The  Good  Old  Cause;  or,  Lying  in 
Truth.'  Oddly  enough  the  line  he  took  was  the  same  line 
which  was  afterwards  taken  against  himself  in  the  Usages 
controversy1 — that  is,  his  pamphlet  was  an  ironical  defence 
of  the  bishop  against  some  impostor  who  pretended  that 
Burnet  had  uttered  language  in  his  speech  and  his  sermon 
which  could  not  possibly  have  been  used  by  a  Christian 
prelate.  The  pamphlet  was  supposed  to  reflect  upon  the 
Government,  and  a  warrant  was  issued  against  Leslie  on 
July  24,  1710.  He  put  in  no  appearance,  so  on  August  8 
he  was  outlawed,  and  on  September  9  a  proclamation  was 
issued  for  his  apprehension  on  account  of  some  '  positions 
tending  to  bring  in  the  Pretender.'  Mrs.  Leslie  was  in 
weak  health,  and  could  ill  bear  a  long  journey  ;  so  instead 
of  going  abroad,  Leslie  found  refuge  for  six  months  in  a 
house  belonging  to  Mr.  Cherry,  at  White  Waltham,  close 
to  Cherry's  and  Dodwell's  own  abode  at  Shottesbrooke. 
Leslie  called  this  « my  Tusculum,'  and  was  deeply  grateful 
to  Mr.  Cherry  for  his  kindness.  He  was,  of  course, 
obliged  to  live  in  disguise,  and  sometimes,  it  is  said, '  wore 
regimentals.' 

In  the  spring  of  1711  he  and  Mrs.  Leslie  went  to  pay 
a  visit  at  St.  Germains  on  the  express  invitation  of  him 
whom,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  Leslie  ever  regarded 
as  his  only  lawful  sovereign.  His  life  henceforth  was  that 
of  a  wanderer;  we  next  find  him  with  Mrs.  Leslie  in 
Holland ;  and  then,  when  the  Chevalier  was  forced  to 
leave  St.  Germains,  and  settled  at  Bar-le-Duc,  Leslie 
accepted  the  post  of  chaplain  to  the  Anglican  members 
of  his  household,  who  were  very  numerous.  His  main 
object  was  not,  as  was  generally  rumoured,  '  to  convert 

1  See  infra,  p.  298. 

M 


!62  THE   NONJURORS 

the  Pretender,'  though,  of  course,  as  a  strong  English 
Churchman,  he  would  have  been  thankful  if  his  argu- 
ments had  produced  that  effect,  but  simply  to  have  the 
opportunity  of  exercising  his  ministerial  functions,  which 
he  had  not  had  for  many  years,  aud  which,  like  every 
earnest  clergyman,  he  was  naturally  anxious  to  have. 
Then  we  find  him  in  Italy,  then  at  St.  Germains  again, 
where  Mary  of  Modena,  widow  of  James  II.,  treated  him 
with  marked  attention  ;  and  finally,  through  the  generous 
intervention  of  his  foe,  George  I.,  who  declared  that  '  the 
old  man  should  come  home  and  die  in  peace,'  again  in 
England.  He  returned  in  the  autumn  of  1721,  a  broken- 
down  man.  The  sands  of  life  were  fast  running  out,  and 
the  end  came  on  April  13,  1722.  He  was  buried  at 
Glaslough,  his  old  home,  which  he  had  not  seen  for  more 
than  thirty  years.  He  left  behind  him  a  distinguished 
name  ;  and  the  fact  that  he  did  so  is  another  instance 
how  very  little  official  position  or  adventitious  eminence 
of  any  kind  counts  in  the  permanent  estimation  in  which 
men  are  held.  Just  as  plain  John  Keble,  who  could  add 
no  title  of  dignity  of  any  sort  to  his  name,  is  known  and 
respected  long  after  archbishops  and  bishops  have  been 
forgotten,  so  Charles  Leslie,  who  was  never  anything 
more  than  plain  Charles  Leslie,  is  known  by  many  who 
would  be  hard  put  to  it  if  they  were  asked  anything 
about  the  leading  ecclesiastics  who  were  his  contem- 
poraries. 

From  the  saintly  John  Kettlewell  and  the  brilliant 
Charles  Leslie  we  turn  to  a  different  type  of  Nonjuror — 
the  fine  old  Cavalier,  who,  if  he  had  lived  in  the  pre- 
ceding generation,  would  have  been  ready  to  shed  his  las! 
drop  <>f  Mood  and  Bpend  his  last  penny  for  the  sake  of  the 
I  Martyr,  and  was  now  ready  to  do  the  same  for  the 
l;  ya]  Martyr's  son. 


DENIS  GEANVILLE  163 

Denis  Granville,  or  Grenville  (1637-1703),  lost  more 
than  most  men  through  his  refusal  to  take  the  oaths,  for 
the  simple  reason  that  he  had  more  to  lose.  To  use  his 
own  words,  he  gave  up  '  the  best  deanery,  the  best  arch- 
deaconry, and  one  of  the  best  livings  in  England  '  for 
conscience'  sake.  How  he  came  to  obtain  and  to  hold 
all  these  rich  preferments  his  history  will  explain.  He 
came  of  an  ancient  Cornish  stock,  being  a  younger  son  of 
Sir  Bevil  Granville,  who,  having  rendered  great  service  to 
the  Boyal  cause  in  Cornwall,  was  killed  when  fighting  for 
the  King  in  the  battle  of  Lansdowne  in  1643.  He  was 
educated  at  Eton  and  Exeter  College,  Oxford,  and  in  1660 
he  married  a  daughter  of  the  great  Bishop  Cosin.  In 
1661  he  was  ordained  by  Bishop  Sanderson,  together 
with  William  Beveridge,  for  whom  he  conceived  a  great 
reverence  ;  and  in  the  same  year  his  eldest  brother,  John, 
who  had  rendered  even  greater  service  than  his  father  to 
the  Koyal  cause,  was  created  a  peer,  as  Earl  of  Bath.  He 
was  thus  marked  out  for  preferment  by  birth,  by  mar- 
riage, and  by  the  services  of  his  relations ;  and  preferment 
quickly  came  to  him  in  rich  profusion.  In  the  very  year 
of  his  ordination  he  received,  on  the  presentation  of  his 
brother,  the  family  living  of  Kilkhampton  in  Cornwall. 
In  1662  he  was  collated  by  his  father-in-law  to  the  first 
stall  in  Durham  Cathedral,  and  in  the  same  year  appointed 
to  the  Archdeaconry  of  Durham,  with  the  rich  living  of 
Easington  annexed ;  and  in  1664  the  rectory  of  Elwick 
Hall  was  added.  In  1667  he  was  instituted  to  the  still 
richer  living  of  Sedgefield,  resigning  Elwick  Hall.  All 
this  plethora  of  preferment  coming  to  him  when  he  had 
scarcely  reached  his  thirtieth  year  wTas  too  much  for  him. 
His  father-in-law,  Bishop  Cosin,  complains  of  his  pro- 
longed absences  from  home  ;  he  was  constantly  at  Oxford 
or  in  London,  bsing  one  of  the  Boyal  chaplains ;  he  must 

M  2 


164  THE   NONJURORS 

have  been  very  extravagant,  for,  in  spite  of  his  large  clerical 
income,  he  became  involved  in  pecuniary  difficulties,  and 
in  1G74  was  actually  arrested  for  debt.  This  seems  to 
have  proved  a  wholesome  check  to  him,  though  he  never 
was  quite  easy  in  money  matters.1  All  the  while,  how- 
ever, there  were  germs  of  better  things  in  him.  If  he 
neglected  his  clerical  duties  himself,  he  insisted  upon  his 
curates  working  their  parishes  most  diligently  on  Church 
lines ;  he  ruled  his  family  very  strictly,  and  the  men  he 
most  admired  were  all  Christians  of  a  very  high  type. 
He  made  great  efforts  to  establish  a  weekly  celebration  of 
the  Holy  Communion  not  only  in  Durham  but  in  other 
cathedrals,  and  his  efforts  were  crowned  with  considerable 
success  ;  he  waged  war  against  'pulpit  prayers,'  which  he 
regarded  as  a  remnant  of  Puritanism,  and  in  every  way 
strove  to  fight  the  battle  of  the  Church.  In  1684,  through 
the  influence  of  Lord  Crewe,  who  in  167*2  had  succeeded 
Granville's  father-in-law  as  bishop,  he  was  appointed  to 
the  wealthy  deanery  of  Durham,  still  retaining  the  arch- 
deaconry and  his  rich  livings.  Archbishop  Sancroft  in 
vain  protested,  declaring,  not  very  complimentarily,  that 
*  Grenville  was  not  worthy  of  the  least  stall  in  Durham 
Cathedral ; '  but  the  bishop  replied  that  '  he  would  rather 
choose  a  gentleman  than  a  silly  fellow  who  knew  nothing 
but  books.'  This  was  very  characteristic  of  the  two  men ; 
Sancroft  would  certainly  sympathise  more  with  the  new 
dean's  Churchmanship  than  Crewe  would  ;  but  he  had, 
as  events  proved,  a  more  sensitive  conscience  than  Crewe, 
and  he  did  not  think  that  because  a  man  was  a  good 
Churchman  and  a  gentleman  he  should  therefore  be  over- 
Loaded   with  preferments,  to  the  exclusion  of  others  who 

1  Ihia  appear!  in  the  now  Life  of  Dean  QranpiUt,  by  the  Bev.  Bog 
Granville,  which  is  an  intonating  mid  valuable  rrapplemenl  t<>  the  Btmamt 
edited  by  Canon  Ornaby  fur  the  Bnrteee  Bociety,  vol  i.  in 
1861,  vol.  IL  in  1866. 


DENIS  GEANVILLE  165 

were  of  much  greater  mark.  Granville,  however,  rose  to 
the  occasion  and  made  a  good  dean,  using  his  elevated 
position,  among  other  ways,  for  the  encouragement  of 
promising  young  divines.  We  must  allow  a  little  for  the 
partiality  of  a  relative  in  the  following  picture  of  him 
drawn  by  his  nephew,  Lord  Lansdowne  :  '  Sanctity  sat 
so  easy,  so  unaffected,  and  so  graceful  upon  him,  that  in 
him  we  beheld  the  very  beauty  of  holiness,'  with  much 
more  to  the  same  effect.1  Denis  Granville,  at  least  as 
he  appears  in  the  '  Cosin  Correspondence,'  in  his  own 
*  Eemains,'  and  in  the  new  '  Life,'  was  not  a  saint  like 
Thomas  Ken  and  John  Kettle  well ;  but  others  who  can 
be  better  trusted  than  his  enthusiastic  nephew  speak  very 
highly  of  him.  Sir  George  Wheler,  for  instance,  who  as 
canon  of  Durham  and  rector  of  Houghton-le- Spring  knew 
him  intimately,  bears  witness  to  his  '  pious  and  devout 
temper,'  and  Barnabas  Oley,  whose  trustworthiness  none 
will  dispute,  always  spoke  of  him  as  '  that  truly  pious  and 
devout  good  man,  Dr.  Granville.' 2  His  conduct  at  the 
Kevolution  shows  that  he  was  not  a  selfish  man  ;  he  did 
not  hesitate  one  moment  about  sacrificing  deanery,  arch- 
deaconry, rich  livings,  and  social  standing  in  the  diocese, 
because  he  could  not  keep  them  with  a  safe  conscience. 
His  account  of  the  matter  is  well  worth  studying  as  it 
appears  in  his  '  Eemains.'  '  These  embody,'  writes  the 
editor  in  his  excellent  Introduction,  '  the  sentiments  of  one 
of  those  high-minded  men  who  chose  rather  to  sacrifice  the 
highest  preferment  than  swear  allegiance  to  one  whom 
they  regarded  both  as  an  invader  and  an  usurper  '  (p.  iii). 
The  attitude  he  assumed  and  maintained  was  really  an 
heroic  one.  As  soon  as  ever  he  heard  of  the  intended 
invasion  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  he  at  once  took  steps  to 

1  See  Noble's  Continuation  of  Granger,  i.  118-9. 
a  See  Life  in  the  English  Church,  1660-1714,  p.  90. 


166  THE   NONJURORS 

confirm  the  loyalty  of  all  those  over  whom  in  his  various 
positions  he  had  influence.  He  impressed  upon  the 
parishioners  of  his  country  cures  the  duty  of  '  subjection 
and  allegiance  to  their  sovereign  '  in  the  strongest  terms.1 
He  summoned  '  his  brethren  the  Prebendaries  together 
into  their  Chapter-House,  and  persuaded  them  to  assist 
the  King  with  their  purses  as  well  as  their  prayers.'  He 
called  the  clerg}'  of  his  archdeaconry  together  and  urged 
them  '  to  secure  their  flocks  to  assist  their  sovereign  in 
the  impending  crisis.'  He  tried  to  persuade  the  chapter 
and  the  magistracy  of  the  county  to  join  in  a  loyal  address 
to  the  King  expressing  a  horror  of  the  invasion  ;  and 
when  he  failed,  he  sent  in  a  personal  address  of  his  own. 
This  was  intercepted,  and  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Earl 
of  Danby,  Lord  Lumley,  and  other  adherents  of  the 
Prince  at  York.  On  Advent  Sunday,  1CSS,  Durham  was 
occupied  by  Lord  Lumley  at  the  very  time  when  the 
dean  was  preaching  an  Advent  sermon  in  the  cathedral. 
This  did  not  in  the  least  daunt  him,  though  he  stood 
almost  alone  as  a  supporter  of  James.  On  the  next 
Sunday  he  again  preached  in  the  cathedral  '  a  seasonable, 
loyall  sermon,  to  persuade  the  members  of  that  church 
and  all  the  auditory,  to  Btand  firm  to  their  allegiance  in 
that  day  of  temptation,  and  never  to  joyne  in  t!. 
wayes  with  that  horrid  n  bellion  which  was  at  that  time 
sett  on  foot  in  the  nation.'  To  his  Litter  mortification 
his  own  brother,  the  Earl  of  Bath,  'sullied  the  hitherto 
stainless  loyalty  of  the  house  of  Granville  by  joinirj 
usurper.'  After  tin  defeat  of  James  ni  [reland  and  Lis 
retreat  into  France,  Granville  joined  the  exiled  Court  at 
■inains, where  there  ■  of  the  Church  of 

England  who  naturally  desired  to  worship  God  after  their 
own  fashion;  and  they  wished  to  haw  Dean  GranvilJ    for 

1   See  Iit)>ini.is,  i.  67,  Uld 


DENIS  GRANVILLE  167 

their  chaplain ;  but  the  request  was  refused.  Attempts  were 
made  to  bring  him  over  to  the  Church  of  Borne,  which  he 
steadily  resisted ;  but  he  was  so  worried  by  the  priests  who 
surrounded  King  James  that  he  retired  to  Paris,  where  he 
died  in  lodgings  in  very  reduced  circumstances  in  1703. 

When  he  first  left  England,  he  issued  towards  the 
close  of  1689,  '  From  my  study  at  Eouen,'  an  interesting 
work  with  the  following  portentous  title  : 

'The  Resigned  and  Resolved  Christian  and  Faithful  and 
Undaunted  Royalist  in  Two  Plain  Sermons  and  a  Loyal  Fare- 
well Visitation-Speech,'  both  delivered  amidst  the  lamentable 
confusions  occasioned  by  the  late  Foreign  Invasion  and  Home 
Defection  of  his  Majesty's  subjects  in  England  by  D.  G.,  Dean 
and  Archdeacon  of  Durham  (now  in  exile)  Chaplain  in  Ordinary 
to  his  Majesty,  whereunto  are  added  certain  Letters  to  his  rela- 
tions and  friends  in  England,  shewing  the  Reason  and  Maner 
of  his  withdrawing  out  of  the  Kingdom,  viz.  A  Letter  to  his 
brother,  the  Earle  of  Bath,  A  Letter  to  his  Bishop,  the  Bishop 
of  Durham ;  a  Letter  to  his  Brethren,  the  Prebendaryes ;  a 
Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  his  Archdeaconry ;  a  Letter  to  his 
Curates  at  Easington  and  Sedgfiekl. 

It  is  dedicated  to  '  The  Queen  of  England,'  that  is,  of 
course,  Mary  Beatrice  of  Modena.  In  his  '  Address  to 
the  Eeader '  he  desires  •  all  persons  in  England  who  have 
laboured,  either  by  kind  invitations  or  threats  of  depriva- 
tion, to  prevaile  with  me  to  return,  and  submit  to  the 
new  Government,  to  receive  this  my  final  answer — to 
wit :  If  I  be  deprived,  I  am  deprived ;  or,  to  approach  a 
little  nearer  to  the  phrase  of  good  father  Jacob,  If  I  be 
bereaved  (of  my  preferment),  I  am  bereaved.' 1  The 
tenour  of  the  sermons,  the  speech,  and  the  letters  may 
be  guessed  from  what  has  been  written  above.  It  need 
only  be  added  that  in  his  letters  to  the  different  clergy, 
he  could  use  a  telling  argument,  which,  like  many  others 

1  See  Remains,  i.  5-7 


168  THE  NONJURORS 

who  complied,  they  would  find  it  very  difficult  to  answer. 
He  appealed  to  their  former  teaching,  and  asked  how  they 
could  reconcile  it  with  their  present  conduct.  He  could 
say  to  Bishop  Crewe,  •  Your  Lordship,  I  am  sure  (which 
is  my  comfort),  will  be  none  of  those  who  shall  load  me 
with  reproaches  for  my  dutyfull  complyance  with  his 
Majesty,  since  your  example  (which  did  outrun  others) 
as  well  as  your  advice,  did  powerfully  incite  me  thereto  ; ' 
to  the  vice-dean  and  prebendaries  : 

Such  a  notorious  contradiction  of  your  own  past  preaching 
and  practice  must,  I  fear,  render  you  very  cheap  among  those 
people  which  you  have  drawn  into  a  snare  by  a  very  sinfull 
example,  and  who  have  too  much  sense  not  to  discern  the  ill- 
ness thereof,  though  they  want  courage  to  resist  it.  You  very 
often  in  my  presence  preach'd  false  doctrine  if  your  present 
proceedings  and  complyance  are  justifyahle  ; 

to  the  clergy  of  the  archdeaconry :  '  I  have  reason  to  believe 
that  all  of  you  know  your  duty  well  enough,  since  the 
prerogative  of  the  king,  passive  obedience  and  non- 
resistance  were  preach'd  up  by  you  in  the  Bishoprick  of 
Durham  with  more  zeal  than  in  any  diocese  of  England.' 
The  dean  also  wrote  to  Archbishop  Sancroft  assuring  him 
of  his  loyalty,  which  was  generous  on  his  part,  seeing 
that  Sancroft  had  opposed  his  appointment  to  the 
deanery ;  and  to  Beveridge,  then  Archdeacon  of  Col- 
chester, whom  he  addresses  more  in  sorrow  than  in  anger, 
urging  him  to  act  worthily  of  his  high  character  and 
return  to  his  proper  allegiance,  and  assuring  him  that 
many  will  follow  his  example  :  '  Leap  forth,  then,  in  the 
Dame  of  God,  and  Lead  Oil  your  brethren  !  '  Denis  (iran- 
villc  was  a  good  specimen  of  what  may  be  called,  without 

!  n  ct,  the  lint' old  crusted  lioyalists,  of  whom  it  is  hard 
to    Baj    whether  their  enthusiasm  for   the  Church  more 

bhened  their  attachment  to  the  monarchy,  or  their 


JOHN  FITZWILLIAM  169 

attachment  to  the  monarchy  strengthened  their  attach- 
ment to  the  Church.  They  represented  rather  a  different 
type  of  mind  from  that  of  the  majority  of  the  Nonjurors. 
They  were  survivals  of  the  past,  and  were  more  numerous 
in  the  earlier  than  in  the  later  part  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  the  type  quite  died  out  in  the  eighteenth. 

Dean  Granville  was  an  Oxford  man,  but  had  no 
further  connection  with  the  University  than  having 
graduated  there.  We  now  come,  however,  to  two  pro- 
minent Nonjurors  who  were  fellows  of  Magdalen  ;  both 
were  residents,  one  for  a  few  years,  the  other  for  the 
whole  of  his  adult  life ;  both  took  a  deep  interest  in  their 
college,  and  showed  their  interest  in  it  to  the  last. 

John  Fitzwilliam  (1636  ?-1699)  is  one  of  the  few 
Nonjurors  of  whom  Lord  Macaulay  writes  in  tones  of 
unqualified  praise,  coupling  his  name  with  that  of  John 
Kettlewell,  and  saying  that  they  both  '  deserve  special 
mention,  less  on  account  of  their  abilities  and  learning, 
than  on  account  of  their  rare  integrity,  and  of  their  not 
less  rare  candour.'  Fitzwilliam  was  a  prominent  Church- 
man all  through  the  period  between  the  Kestoration  and 
the  Revolution.  He  entered  as  a  servitor  at  Magdalen 
College,  Oxford,  in  1651,  was  elected  to  a  demyship  shortly 
afterwards,  and  to  a  fellowship  in  1661,  which  he  held 
until  1670.  Anthony  Wood  says,  rather  maliciously,  that 
at  the  Kestoration  '  he  turned  about  and  became  a  great 
complier  to  the  restored  liturgy.'  But  Fitzwilliam  was 
a  contemporary  and  friend  of  Ken  in  his  undergraduate 
days,  and  one  can  scarcely  fancy  Ken  making  a  friend  of 
one  who  required  to  '  turn  about '  when  the  liturgy  was 
restored.  Moreover,  Fitzwilliam  preached  and  printed 
a  sermon  in  1683  on  the  public  thanksgiving  for  the 
delivery  of  the  King  from  the  Eye-House  Plot,  in  which 
he  appeals  to  '  the  zeal  I  had  for  the  present  Government 


170  THE   NONJURORS 

even  while  it  was  merely  to  be  enjoyed  in  hopes,  and  we 
could  only  wish  it  might  be  restored.'  He  would  hardly 
have  made  this  public  assertion  when  it  could  easily 
have  been  contradicted,  if  it  had  not  been  true.  But,  at 
any  rate,  it  is  rather  unfair  to  cast  up  against  a  man 
what  he  may  have  done  or  thought  when  he  was  a  mere 
boy.  Certainly  during  the  whole  of  his  clerical — that  is, 
his  adult — life  his  course  was  perfectly  consistent ;  it  was 
that  of  a  plain  English  Churchman  by  conviction.  He 
was  brought  into  close  contact  with  some  of  the  leading 
Churchmen  of  the  day.  He  was  a  lifelong  friend  of  Ken 
and  Kettlewell.  Dean  Plumptre  associates  his  name 
with  those  of  Kettlewell  and  Robert  Nelson,  as  three  men 
'  of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy,  whose  holiness  of  life 
probably  contributed  in  no  small  measure  to  influence 
Ken's  decision '  not  to  take  the  oaths.1  Bishop  Morley 
and  Bishop  Turner  were  also  among  his  friends  and 
patrons.  After  his  election  to  his  fellowship  he  resided 
in  college,  and  became  college  librarian  and  university 
lecturer  on  music.  But  in  1(504  he  left  Oxford,  being 
recommended  by  Dr.  Morley  (the  very  last  man,  by  the 
way.  to  have  patronised  'a  compiler'  who  had  'turned 
about '  at  the  Kestoration)  to  the  Lord  Treasurer,  Thomas 
Wriothesley,  Earl  of  Southampton,  who  made  him  his 
domesti''  chaplain  and  tutor  to  his  two  daughters,  with 
one  of  whom  he  maintained  a  lifelong  friendship.  On  the 
death  of  the  earl,  Bishop  Morley  '  took  him  into  liis  own 
household/  and  in  ir>i;r.  recommended  him  as  chaplain 
to  James,  Duke  of  Zork,  to  whose  (laughter,  afterwards 
Anne,  he  became  tutor.  In  L669  the  same  kind 
patron  appointed  him  rector  of  Brighstone,  in  BUOCessiori 
to  in  friend,  Thomas  Km.  Then  another  friend  from 
the  old  undergraduate  days,  Francis  Turner,  now  Bishop 
1  Lift  of  Km,  ii.  l". 


JOHN  FITZWILLIAM  171 

of  Ely,  gave  him  the  living  of  Cottenham,  and  finally 
he  was  promoted  by  the  Crown  to  a  canonry  at  Windsor. 
So,  at  the  time  of  the  Eevolution,  he  was  canon  of 
Windsor  and  rector  of  Cottenham,  two  very  comfortable 
posts ;  though,  of  course,  nothing  like  the  rich  prefer- 
ments surrendered  by  Dean  Granville.  He  had,  however, 
a  real  sacrifice  to  make,  and  he  made  it  cheerfully.  He 
is  now  chiefly  known  through  his  correspondence  with 
Kachel,  Lady  Russell,  daughter  of  Lord  Southampton, 
who  had  been  his  pupil  when  a  child,  and  who  took  him 
for  her  guide  and  spiritual  adviser  till  the  end  of  his  life, 
and  especially  in  her  great  sorrow,  when  her  husband 
was  executed  for  his  supposed  complicity  in  the  Rye- 
House  Plot.  Fitzwilliam  always  believed  in  Lord  Wil- 
liam's innocence,  and  was  a  witness  for  the  defence  at 
his  trial.  The  friend  of  Ken,  Turner  and  Kettlewell,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  Lord  Southampton,  Lord  William 
and  Lady  Rachel  Russell  on  the  other,  may  seem  oddly 
mixed  up  with  what  we  should  now  call  '  high '  and 
•  low  '  Church  people.  But  until  quite  the  close  of  the 
seventeenth  century  these  terms  were  hardly  known. 
Before  then,  Church  people  were  simply  Church  people, 
without  any  epithet,  and  if  Lady  Rachel  wished  for  guid- 
ance in  leading  a  consistent  Church  life,  she  would  require 
one  who  was  simply  a  Churchman  for  her  director ;  and 
such  an  one  she  undoubtedly  found  in  John  Fitzwilliam. 
It  is,  however,  somewhat  curious  that  he  should  have 
been  called  as  witness  for  the  defence  at  the  trials  of  two 
men  of  such  very  opposite  sentiments  as  Lord  AVilliaru 
Russell,  the  exclusionist,  and  John  Ashton,  the  Jacobite. 
At  the  trial  of  the  latter  he  gives  us  a  glimpse  of  his  own 
conduct  and  principles.  He  bears  witness  that  he  had 
seen  Ashton  at  the  Holy  Communion  in  Ely  Chapel — 
that  is,  Bishop  Turner's  chapel  at  Ely  House,  Holborn — 


172  THE  NONJURORS 

and  when  asked  whether  King  William  and  Queen  Mary 
were  prayed  for  by  name,  admitted  that  the  names,  as 
inserted,  were  not  mentioned,  and  implied  that  he  was 
a  regular  worshipper  there.  When  asked  whether  he 
had  taken  the  oaths  to  the  new  king  and  queen,  'No, 
I  have  not,  Sir,'  he  replied,  '  that's  my  unhappiness  ;  but 
I  know  how  to  submit  and  live  peaceably  under  them.' 
And  he  added,  '  If  anyone  can  say  I  have  done  or  acted 
anything  against  the  Government,  I  will  readily  submit 
to  be  punished  for  it.'1  He  never  did  act  in  any  way 
against  the  Government ;  but,  in  spite  of  the  earnest 
entreaties  of  Lady  Rachel,  he  never  could  be  persuaded 
to  take  the  oaths.  He  lived  in  an  attic  in  London,  where 
there  was  no  room  for  his  books ;  and  the  only  favour 
he  asked  of  Lady  Rachel  was  that  she  would  try  to 
find  room  somewhere  for  them.  He  was  not,  however, 
reduced  to  actual  penury,  for  he  left  in  his  will  a  life 
interest  in  500Z.  to  his  old  friend  Ken,  whom  he  made  his 
executor ;  on  Ken's  death,  the  money  was  to  go  to  the 
library  of  Magdalen  College.2 

Fitzwilliain  published  nothing  except  the  single  ser- 
mon already  alluded  to ;  but  among  the  Rawlinson  MSS. 
are  a  number  of  theological  treatises  written  by  him  in 
excellent  Latin.  One  of  them  is  entitled  '  De  Jaramento 
non  suscipiendo  (1G95),'  which  gives  a  lucid  apology  for 
his  not  taking  the  oath  to  King  William  ;  another  is  a 
<!■  rational  treatise  '  On  Prayer,'  written  in  English. 

Thomas  Smith  (1038-1710)  graduated  from  Queen's 
College;  in  1661,  and  in  1668  was  appointed  Master 
of    the    Magdalen    School    (Ludi   Magister),     He   was 

'  Laihbnry,  p.  80. 

;  Srr  Eearni  t,  iii.  hm.     Also  EeUquim  Hearnianm,  ii.  30, 

whrn  Iliurnc  vmdicnti'S  Fit/william  from  some  dipivciatory  remarks  of 
|,r-  6hl  I  is  wi'll  known  ho  was  a  very  wise  and  a  very  good, 

ii    wi  11  u  u  learned  man.' 


THOMAS  SMITH  173 

elected  probationer  fellow  of  Magdalen  in  1666,  and 
actual  fellow  in  1667,  and  held  his  fellowship  till  he 
was  ejected  as  a  Nonjuror,  filling  various  college  offices. 
In  1668  he  went  to  the  East  as  chaplain  to  Sir  Daniel 
Harvey,  ambassador  at  Constantinople,  and  after  three 
years'  sojourn  returned,  bringing  with  him  a  number 
of  Greek  manuscripts  and  filled  with  a  deep  interest  in 
the  Greek  Church.  Thus  he  was  a  precursor  of  those 
later  Nonjurors  who  made  advances  to  that  Church. 
He  was  so  full  of  his  subject  that  he  was  nicknamed 
at  Oxford  'Babbi  Smith'  and  '  Tograi  Smith,' Tograi 
being  the  name  of  an  Arabian  author,  whose  poem  he 
had  edited.1  He  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  memo- 
rable election  of  the  President  of  Magdalen  in  1687, 
and  his  diary  furnishes  us  with  a  valuable  help  for  un- 
ravelling the  complications  in  which  the  question  was 
involved.2  Thomas  Smith  incurred  great  odium  for  his 
action  in  the  matter,  but  most  unjustly ;  his  conduct  was 
honest  and  straightforward  from  first  to  last,  and  quite 
consistent  with  the  principles  he  professed  and  acted  upon 
all  his  life  long.  On  the  one  hand,  he  tried  to  maintain 
that  attitude  of  passive  obedience  and  non-resistance 
which  had  nowhere  been  so  strongly,  authoritatively,  and 
frequently  enforced  as  in  his  own  University.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  strove  to  be  perfectly  loyal  to  the  Church 
of  England.  He  was  influenced  by  no  selfish  considera- 
tions ;  he  had  shown  this  from  the  very  beginning.  When 
the  old  president  died  in  March  1687,  he  had  some  reason- 
able hope  of  succeeding  to  the  post ;  for  he  had  been 
elected  vice-president  in  1682  and  was  now  senior  bursar  ; 
he  was  a  man  distinguished  for  his  learning  ;  and  he  had 

1  See  J.  E.  Bloxam's  Magdalen  College  Register,  in.  196  et  seq. 

•  See  Magdalen  College  and  King  James  II.,  edited  by  Dr.  Bloxarn  for 
the  Oxford  Historical  Society,  passim,  especially  the  admirable  Introduction 
by  Canon  Bramley. 


174  THE  NONJURORS 

a  powerful  friend  at  Court  in  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  (Dr. 
Parker),  through  whom  he  might  obtain  a  Royal  letter  of 
recommendation  to  the  College.  But  '  the  King,'  said 
Parker,  '  will  recommend  no  person  who  is  not  a  friend 
to  His  Majesty's  religion.  What  can  you  do  to  please 
him  as  to  that  matter  ?  '  Smith  replied  that  if  he  became 
president  he  would  make  it  his  business  to  advance 
piety  and  learning,  to  keep  men  dutiful  and  obedient 
to  the  King's  person  and  government,  and  truly  loyal, 
and  to  promote  true  Catholic  Christianity.  '  That  will 
not  do,'  said  the  bishop.  '  Then,'  replied  Smith,  '  let 
who  will  take  the  Presidentship  for  me,  I  will  look  no 
more  after  it.'  Between  his  loyalty  to  the  Church  and 
his  loyalty  to  the  King  he  was  placed  in  an  awkward 
dilemma.  He  utterly  opposed  the  appointment  of  the 
first  Royal  nominee,  Anthony  Farmer,  who  was  neither 
statutably  nor  morally  qualified ;  but  when  the  King 
issued  a  mandate  for  the  election  of  the  Bishop  of 
Oxford,  Smith  with  his  feelings  of  loyalty  could  hold 
out  no  longer,  but  submitted  unreservedly  to  the  Royal 
mandate.  In  fact  he  took  a  middle  course,  and  shared 
the  usual  fate ;  being  abused  by  both  sides,  especially  by 
that  side  with  which  he  was  most  in  sympathy.  '  1  was 
bespattered,'  he  says,  '  with  horrible,  scandalous  and 
diabolical  reflections,  as  though  I  were  a  Papist,  or  at 
Least  would  soon  declare  myself  such:  that  I  had  per- 
juriously  violated  my  Founder's  Statutes,  and  that  by  this 
compliance  1  was  making  my  court  to  get  preferment.11 
This  was  in  London.  But  it  was  the  same  at  Oxford  ; 
his  Oxford  nickname,  'Dr.  Tograi,'  became  by  an  easy 
ion  'Dr.  Roguery,'  and  he  was  regarded  as  the 
most  glaring  instance  of  what  was  contemptuously  called 

Dr.  Bmith'i   Diary  In  Me  i      egt  and  Jamea  II. ,  p.  315,  with 

•ho     UM  •  SeOt  in   D.  316. 


THOMAS  SMITH  175 

*  the  Magdalen  conscience.'  But  his  motives  were  cruelly- 
misrepresented  :  he  neither  received  nor  desired  any 
preferment ;  he  had  not  the  faintest  intention  of  becoming 
a  Eoman  Catholic  ;  when,  on  the  death  of  Parker  within 
a  few  months,  James  succeeded  in  intruding  a  Eoman 
Catholic  into  the  presidentship,  Smith  'refused  to  live 
among  the  new  Popish  Fellows,'  was  ejected  from  his  fel- 
lowship (August  3, 1688),  and  only  restored  to  it  when  all 
the  rest  were  on  October  25,  1688.  Posterity  has  done 
more  justice  to  him  in  the  matter  than  his  contemporaries 
did.  Lord  Macaulay,  in  spite  of  his  Whig  prejudices 
against  the  Nonjurors,  speaks  highly  of  Smith's  conduct 
throughout.1  There  are  no  better  authorities  on  Magdalen 
affairs  than  Dr.  Pvouth,  Dr.  Bloxam,  and  Canon  Bramley, 
and  they  all  vindicate  Smith's  conduct.2 

To  pass  on  to  the  next  scene  in  Smith's  life.  Not- 
withstanding the  trouble  in  which  James  II.  had  involved 
him,  he  remained  a  firm  Jacobite,  and  again  lost  his 
fellowship  as  a  Nonjuror.  The  oaths  were  not  so  quickly 
and  rigorously  enforced  at  the  Universities,  where  the 
clergy  had  no  parochial  charge,  as  they  were  elsewhere, 
and  Smith  held  his  fellowship  until  1692.  He  lived  in 
London,  where  he  had  a  notice  from  the  president,  Dr. 
Hough,  '  that  he  must  come  to  Oxford  and  take  the  oaths, 
or  send  a  certificate  of  his  having  done,  as  he  had  received 
a  fresh  command  from  the  Queen  [King  William  was 
abroad  in  the  field  of  war]  requiring  the  judges  of  assize 
to  tender  the  oaths  again  to  all  such  as  had  not  taken 
them,  and  to  execute  the  laws  immediately  upon  such  as 
refused.'     Smith  replied  : 

I  cannot  come  down  to  Oxford  upon  the  account  for  which 
I  am  summoned  ;  much  less  can  I,  or  shall  I,  send  a  certificate 

1  See  History  of  England,  chap.  viii. 

2  Magdalen  College  and  James  II.,  Introd.  p.  xxviii,  note;  J.  R.  Bloxam's 
Magdalen  College  Register,  iii.  196,  et  scg. ;  and  Routh's  note  to  Burnet,  p.  182. 


17G  THE  NONJURORS 

as  I  am  required,  preferring  the  peace  of  mind  and  satisfaction 
of  my  conscience  before  the  enjoying  of  my  Fellowship  ;  yet 
I  wish  all  happiness  and  prosperity  to  the  College,  and  shal  1 
during  the  remainder  of  the  time  which  by  the  good  Providence 
of  God  I  have  to  live,  endeavour  to  serve  it  as  I  may,  and  as  I 
ought,  to  the  utmost  of  my  power. 

Upon  this  his  fellowship  was  pronounced  void  by  the 
president  and  fellows — July  25,  1692 — and  Oxford  lost 
'  one  of  the  best  scholars  that  were  ever  bred  in  Magdalen 
College,  and  indeed  in  this  University,' l  or,  as  Mr.  Doble 
expresses  it,  •  one  of  the  most  learned  men  in  a  learned 
generation.' 2 

Thomas  Smith,  after  some  vicissitudes,  found  a  kind 
patron  in  a  layman  of  kindred  tastes  and  sympathies,  Sir 
John  Cotton,  grandson  of  the  famous  antiquary,  of  whose 
household  at  Westminster  he  was  an  inmate  for  several 
years.  He  more  than  repaid  the  obligation  by  taking 
charge  of  the  priceless  Cottonian  Manuscripts,  finding  a 
congenial  employment  in  drawing  up  a  catalogue  of  them, 
and  guarding  them  jealously.  The  death  of  his  patron 
in  the  autumn  of  1702  did  not  cause  the  immediate 
removal  of  Smith  from  "Westminster.  He  still  remained 
as  the  guest  of  Sir  John's  successor ;  but  the  last  period 
of  his  life  was  spent  in  the  house  of  his  friend,  Hilkiah 
Bedford,  in  Dean  Street,  Soho,  where  he  died,  May  11, 
1710.  During  the  last  few  years  of  his  life  he  held  a 
pretty  frequent  correspondence  with  Bishop  Ken,  who 
evidently  had  the  highest  opinion  of  his  learning.  From 
these  letters  we  gather  that  Smith  was  in  somewhat 
straitened  circumstances  at  the  close  of  his  life.  He 
sends  Ken  copies  of  his  later  works,  and  Ken  sends  him 
money  (which  one  would  have  thought  the  poor  deprived 
bishop  could  ill  have  spared),  interests   'the  good  lord' 

1    Hearne'l  Collections,  iii.  15. 

1  Introduction  to  Hearne'l  Collections,  vol.  ii.  p.  viii. 


THOMAS  SMITH  177 

(Weymouth)  in  his  behalf,  and  begs  Smith  to  let  him 
know  when  he  is  '  in  any  streight,  or  wants  supplys,  to 
carry  on  his  labours  of  love  for  the  publick.' x  Smith, 
however,  is  quite  the  reverse  of  an  importunate  beggar. 
He  deprecates  Ken's  gifts ;  assures  him  that  since  his 
deprivation  he  has  been  supported  by  a  brother  with 
whom  he  lives,  and  that  his  literary  labours  and  gifts  of 
friends  have  secured  him  from  penury ;  considering  Ken's 
'  narrow  circumstances,'  he  receives  his  bounty  '  with 
great  reluctance,'  and  recommends  a  'Lady  Dutton  and 
her  daughters '  as  more  in  need  of  it.  But  it  was  a 
pleasure  to  Ken  to  give  '  what,'  he  says,  '  I  can  well 
spare '  to  his  friend,  whom  he  had  probably  known  from 
the  old  days  when  they  were  undergraduates  together, 
and  when  '  our  deare  friend  the  Bishop  of  Ely  [Turner], 
now  with  God,'  was  the  intimate  of  both.  It  was  an 
additional  pleasure,  because  Smith,  instead  of  plunging 
into  politics,  as  some  Nonjurors  did  to  Ken's  great  regret, 
devoted  himself  to  literary  work  ;  indeed,  he  adds,  '  con- 
sidering your  labours  of  love  and  learning,  all  your  friends 
can  give  to  you  is  given  to  the  publick.' 2 

Smith,  however,  though  he  wisely  let  politics  alone, 
was  in  his  heart  a  far  more  thoroughpaced  Jacobite  and 
Nonjuror  than  Ken  ever  was.  On  these  points  he 
sympathised  much  more  closely  with  a  younger  friend 
and  correspondent,  Thomas  Hearne.  His  correspondence 
with  Hearne  is  most  voluminous,  and  shows  the  vast 
extent  of  his  learning  and  the  wide  variety  of  subjects  in 
which  he  is  interested.  Hearne  consults  him  on  all  sorts 
of  topics,  and  pays  the  greatest  deference  to  his  opinion 
on  them  all.  The  relationship  between  the  old  and  the 
young  scholar  (there  was  forty  years'  difference  between 
their  ages)  is  a  very  interesting  one.     They  agreed  on  all 

1  Plumptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  184.  ■  Ibid.  ii.  189. 

N 


178  THE  NONJURORS 

points ;  and  the  elder  can  upon  occasion,  though  not  so 
frequently,  express  himself  quite  as  bitterly  as  the  younger 
on  the  iniquities  of  the  Kevolution  settlement  and  all  its 
abettors.  Smith  did  not,  indeed,  live  long  enough  to  see 
the  establishment  of  the  Hanoverian  dynasty,  the  object 
of  Hearne's  particular  aversion  ;  but  there  is  little  doubt 
that  he  would  have  shared  the  feeling  of  his  young  friend 
and  disciple.  Hearne  felt  his  loss  deeply,  and  makes 
more  than  one  touching  reference  to  it.  On  May  13, 1710, 
he  writes : 

On  Thursday  morning  last  between  3  and  4  clock,  died  my 
truly  learned  and  excellent  Friend  Dr.  Thomas  Smith,  in  the 
threescore  and  twelfth  Year  of  his  Age.  He  died  an  undaunted 
Confessor  of  the  poor,  distress'd,  and  afflicted  Church  of  England, 
and  always  stood  stiff  and  resolute  to  the  Doctrines  of  it  as 
laid  down  in  our  Articles  and  Homilies.  As  he  was  a  man  of 
very  great  Learning,  so  he  was  withall  modest,  humble,  and 
wonderfull  communicative,  of  indefatigable  Industry,  and  of 
more  than  ordinary  Curiosity  in  discovering  and  preserving  the 
Writings  of  learned  Men,  especially  those  of  our  own  Countrey, 
\vch  is  much  indebted  to  him  for  the  Lives  of  divers  of  them,  as 
well  as  for  several  other  usefull  &  good  Books.1 

Thomas  Crosthwaite  (1640?-1710)  was  another  Oxford 
resident  who  refused  to  take  the  oaths  to  William  and 
Mary.  He  was  evidently  a  prominent  man  in  his  day, 
though  his  very  name  is  now  forgotten.  He  graduated 
at  Queen's  College  in  1660,  and  became  a  fellow  of  that 
society.  On  May  15,  1684,  he  was  elected  principal  of 
St.  Edmund  Hall ;  but  there  was  a  dispute  about  the 
election,  which  is  vividly  described  by  Andrew  Ailam, 
tli<  antiquary,  who  was  vice-principal  of  the  Hall  at  the 
time,    as   also   by  Wood  and  Hearne.2     lie    lived,  alter 

'  OcUtetiem,  li.  B89.    Bee  also  ii.  397,  liL  15,  and  pauim. 

'■  Bee  Tanner  MS.,  quoted  Ijy  Bar.  A*  Clark  in  a  note  to  his  Life  and 

f    Anthony    WttoA   (Oxf.   Hifit.    Soc),    iii.    1 1  <">   mid    180 ;    Ii 

Collection*,  L  B06;  ii.  B89,  Ml,  M6,  Mi. 


OXFOKD,   A   NONJUEING   CENTEE  179 

his  expulsion  from  his  fellowship  as  a  Nonjuror,  for  a 
time  on  a  small  hereditary  estate  in  the  north,  but 
returned  to  Oxford,  where,  like  Baker  at  Cambridge,  he 
was  allowed  to  retain  his  rooms  at  Queen's.  His  death 
is  thus  described  by  Hearne : 

Jan.  30,  1710. — This  day  died  Dr.  Thomas  Crosthwaite  of 
Queen's  College,  leaving  the  character  behind  him  of  a  learned 
orthodox  Divine,  and  an  undaunted  sufferer  for  his  allegiance  to 
his  undoubted  Sovereign,  and  his  adherence  to  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  England.  He  was  buried  in  Queen's  Coll. 
Chappell  on  Wednesday  night  following,  between  nine  and  ten 
of  the  clock.1 

Oddly  enough,  a  '  Speech  was  spoken  at  his  Funeral  by 
Mr.  Tickel,'  the  poet,  who  was  then  a  junior  fellow  of 
Queen's,  but  took  quite  the  opposite  views  on  politics 
and  theology  from  those  of  Crosthwaite,  '  commending 
the  Doctor  for  his  Learning  and  Constancy,  and  for  his 
Tranquillity  of  mind  to  the  last.' 

Oxford  was  not  only  a  nursery  for  Jacobites  and  Non- 
jurors, but  also  a  place  in  which  for  several  reasons  they 
would  be  inclined  to  linger.  It  had  always  been  a  strong- 
hold of  the  Stuarts,  and  especially  of  that  Stuart  who  was 
in  a  measure  glorified  as  the  Royal  Martyr.  The  Stuarts, 
moreover,  with  all  their  faults,  had  always  been  encou- 
ragers  of  learning  and  culture,  which  a  great  University 
like  Oxford  was  presumably  intended  to  promote ;  and 
this  can  hardly  be  said  of  those  who  took  their  place. 
Again,  there  was  an  old-world  air  about  Oxford,  with  its 
venerable  cloisters,  its  spires,  its  towers,  and  its  domes, 
which  harmonised  with  the  frame  of  mind  which  led  men 
to  adhere  to  the  old  line  through  evil  report  and  good 
report.  Oxford,  too,  was  then  essentially  a  Church  centre, 
and  devotion  to  the  Church  was  a  still  stronger  passion 

1  Collections,  ii.  341. 

N  2 


180  THE  NONJURORS 

in  the  Nonjurors  than  devotion  to  the  King.  Nor  was 
it  only  a  sentimental,  but  also  a  practical,  motive  which 
attracted  them  to  Oxford.  Being  cut  off  by  their  prin- 
ciples from  active  service  to  the  public,  many  of  the 
Nonjurors  devoted  themselves  heart  and  soul  to  literary 
work,  and  there  was  no  place  (except  Cambridge)  where 
they  could  find  the  same  help  for  such  work.  There 
noble  libraries,  easily  accessible,  were  found  in  rich 
abundance ;  there  kindred  spirits  with  whom  they  might 
exchange  thoughts  met  them  at  every  turn ;  there  they 
might  sharpen  their  intellects  by  arguing  with  those  who 
held  different  views,  and  could  present  those  views  in  the 
strongest  form.  A  history  of  the  Nonjurors,  therefore, 
must  necessarily  have  much  to  do  with  Oxford ;  and  we 
must  not  leave  the  old  University,  '  paved  with  the  skulls 
of  Jacobites,'  '  the  home  of  lost  causes  and  impossible 
loyaltys,'  yet  awhile. 

There  was,  to  put  it  mildly,  a  strong  Nonjuring  and 
Jacobite  leaven  even  among  the  constituted  authorities  of 
the  place,  who  had,  of  course,  taken  the  oaths  themselves. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  one  of  the  allegations  brought 
by  Gibbon,  the  historian,  against  the  fellows  of  Magdalen 
was  that  '  their  constitutional  toasts  were  not  expressive 
of  the  most  lively  loyalty  for  the  house  of  Hanover.' l  This 
was  in  1752,  when  Jacobitism  was  fast  dying  out  all  over 
the  kingdom;  and,  if  the  old  feeling  of  loyalty  to  the 
Stuarts  was  rife  at  an  Oxford  College  then,  we  may  be 
sure  that  it  was  ten  times  more  rife  at  an  earlier  period. 
Nicholas  Amhurst  tells  us  in  his  '  T<  me  Films '  (1721,  &c.) 
that  'the  pr<  lender's  health  was  drunk  openly  and  un- 
-iliy  in  all  places ' ;  and,  among  other  symptoms  of 
■i:i<"l>iii  in,  gives  an  extraordinary  story  of '  ft  gentleman  of 

Utmoinofmy  Life  and  Writing$tia  MiaetUemtotu  Works  of  Edward 
Qibbon,  i.  BB,  edited  bj  John,  Lord  Sheffield  (1796). 


OXFOED  AUTHOEITIES  AND   THE  NONJUEOES    181 

Merton  College,'  a  Mr.  Meadowcourt,  being  '  put  into  the 
[proctor's]  black  book  for  drinking  King  George's  health,' 
and  '  kept  out  of  his  degree  for  two  years.'  Some  of  the 
highest  dignitaries  in  the  University  were,  to  say  the 
least,  not  unfavourable  to  the  Nonjurors.  Dr.  Thomas 
Turner,  for  instance,  President  of  Corpus  Christi  College, 
though  he  was  not  himself  a  Nonjuror,1  could  hardly  be 
hostile  to  the  party.  He  was  in  frequent  and  friendly 
correspondence  with  his  brother,  that  arch-Jacobite  and 
Nonjuror,  Bishop  Francis  Turner,  was  entirely  in  his 
confidence,  and  sheltered  him  in  his  distress.  He  offered 
a  chaplaincy  at  Corpus  to  Hearne  (who  never  made  the 
slightest  disguise  of  his  opinions),  intinmting  that  his 
refusal  of  the  oaths  need  be  no  obstacle  ;  and  he  was,  as 
Hearne  says,  '  very  kind  to  the  Nonjurors '  generally. 
Dr.  Thomas  Bayley,  who  was  elected  President  of 
Magdalen  in  1703,  in  succession  to  Dr.  Hough,  could  not 
in  common  decency  be  harsh  to  the  Nonjurors.  He  had 
been  a  Nonjuror  himself,  and  had  been  deprived,  as  such, 
of  the  Magdalen  living  of  Slimbridge  at  the  Kevolution  ; 
and  he  remained  a  Nonjuror  for  twelve  years,  only  taking 
the  oaths  just  before  his  election  as  president.  Again, 
how  could  the  Principal  of  St.  Edmund  Hall,  Dr.  John 
Mill,  be  really  hostile  to  the  Nonjurors,  seeing  that  he 
himself  notoriously  for  a  long  time  '  pendulus  haesit  de 
juramento  fidelitatis '  ?  His  vacillation  was  a  by-word 
at  Oxford;  he  was  nicknamed  'Johnny  Wind-Mill,'  and 
the  children  used,  we  are  told,  to  sing  about  the  streets : 

'  Wilt  thou  take  the  oaths,  little  Johnny  Mill  ?  ' 
'  No,  no,  that  I  won't,  yes,  but  I  will.' 2 

St.  Edmund  Hall,  indeed,  was  a  great  stronghold  of 
Nonjurors,  and,  as  will  appear  presently,  some  of  the  best 

1  He  was  often  erroneously  called  so.       2  Hearne's  Collections,  i.  189-90. 


182  THE   NONJURORS 

and  ablest  of  them  were  educated  there.  Again,  Dr. 
William  King,  who  was  elected  Principal  of  St.  Mary 
Hall  in  1719,  and  held  that  post  for  more  than  forty  years, 
was  long  the  head  of  the  Jacobite  party  at  Oxford,  and 
did  not  conceal  his  sentiments.  In  1749  he  made  a  Latin 
speech  in  the  Sheldonian  Theatre  on  the  occasion  of  the 
opening  of  the  Eadcliffe  Library,  and  in  his  peroration 
introduced  the  word  '  Redeat '  six  times,  each  time  making 
a  long  pause  after  it.  The  significance  was  at  once  per- 
ceived, and  greeted  with  loud  applause.  It  is  true  that  he 
subsequently  changed  his  views,  and  in  his  '  Anecdotes  of 
His  Own  Times '  speaks  anything  but  favourably  of  the 
King  over  the  water,  and  is  also  very  abusive  of  some  of 
the  Nonjurors,  but  that  is  after  there  had  been  a  quarrel ; ' 
previously,  as  they  must  well  have  known,  all  his  sym- 
pathies were  in  their  favour.  Pembroke,  again,  elected 
as  its  master  in  1714  Matthew  Panting,  whom  Dr. 
Johnson  styled  ■  a  fine  Jacobite  fellow,'  and  Hearne  ■  an 
honest  gentleman,'  meaning  the  same  thing.2  At  St. 
John's  College  Dr.  Delaune,  who  was  president  from 
1698  to  1728,  was  notoriously  a  Jacobite  at  heart,  and  the 
sympathies  of  the  fellows  were  with  him.  ■  It  is  said,' 
writes  Mr.  Hutton,  '  that  Dr.  Holmes,  President  from 
1728  to  1748,  was  the  only  Fellow  for  a  long  time  who 
was  a  Hanoverian,  and  the  first  Hanoverian  head.'  Mr. 
Hutton  gives  sonic  amusing  instances  of  the  Jacobitism 
which  was  covertly  hinted  at  in  the  College  Chapel,  as 
when  Dr.  Delaune,  or  possibly  Mr.  Wharton,  '  thundered 
forth  the  words,  "  liestoreth  all  things,"'  and  another 
preacher  gave  m  his  text  'James  the  Third  and  Eighth.'" 

i  Political  and  Library  Anecdote*  of  EU  Own  Timet,  by  Dr.  Wb. 
King,  Prinolpal  of  St.  Marj  Hall,  Ozoou,  i»  191  tl  -<</.  (9nd  edit.,  1819). 
*  Se.-  History  of  Pembroke  College,  Oxford  (Oxf.  Hist.  Boo.),  paeeim, 

St.  John  Baptiefe  College,  by  W.  H.  Hutton. 
pp.  L98  7. 


THE  BALLIOL  NONJURORS  183 

Balliol    College   seems   to   have   been  absolutely  honey- 
combed with  Jacobitism. 

No  less  than  five  Fellows  were  expelled  at  the  Revolution 
for  refusing  to  recognize  the  change  of  dynasty,  and  those  who 
submitted  were  at  heart  of  the  same  opinion  as  those  who  held 
firm.  The  Nonjurors,  though  deprived  of  their  Fellowships, 
hung  about  the  College,  and  infected  it  with  their  own  enthu- 
siasm for  the  House  of  Stuart.  Hearne  walked  out  of  Oxford 
in  June,  1715,  with  three  Balliol  men  to  celebrate  the  birthday 
of  King  James  III. ;  and  tells  two  months  later  of  an  assault 
made  by  Balliol  scholars  [that  is,  no  doubt,  undergraduates]  on 
a  recruiting  officer  of  King  George.  .  .  .  The  Fellows  shared  to 
the  full  in  the  prejudices  of  their  Juniors.  In  1723  they 
elected  Canon  Brydges  of  Rochester  as  their  Visitor  because  he 
was  a  friend  of  Atterbury  ;  the  majority  of  the  Fellows  were, 
until  1760,  more  than  half  inclined  to  be  Jacobites.1 

One  of  the  five  Balliol  fellows  ejected  at  the  Revo- 
lution, Theophilus  Dowries,  obtained  some  notoriety  as 
writer  of  the  Introduction  to  a  book  called  '  Hereditary 
Right  Considered,'  which  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  most 
extreme  books  ever  written  against  the  Revolution  settle- 
ment and  the  Hanoverian  succession.  He  also  wrote 
one  of  the  many  answers  against  Dr.  Sherlock's  '  Case  of 
Allegiance '  and  '  Discourse  concerning  the  Signification 
of  Allegiance,'  and  other  works  which  were  not  on  strictly 
Nonjuring  subjects.  Hearne  tells  us  that  he  '  travelled 
several  times  abroad  with  young  gentlemen,' 2  a  not 
infrequent  resource  for  distressed  Nonjurors.  Theophilus 
must  not  be  confounded  with  Samuel  Downes,  who  was 
also  an  ejected  Oxford  fellow,  but  belongs  to  a  later 
period,  and  will  be  noticed  in  a  later  chapter. 

Perhaps  this  will  be  the  best  place  to  notice  another 
very  estimable  Nonjuror  who  had  been  an  Oxford  fellow, 
but  had  probably  given  up  his  fellowship,  and  had  cer- 

1  College  Histories  :  Balliol  College,  pp.  168-9. 
*  Collections,  ii.  103  and  430. 


184  THE   NONJUBORS 

t;iinly  become  a  parish  priest  and  a  small  dignitary  in  the 
Church  when  he  was  deprived  of  his  preferments  after 
the  He  volution. 

Walter  Harte  (1051-1735)  would  probably,  like  so 
many  quiet  sufferers  for  conscience'  sake,  have  passed  into 
oblivion  had  not  his  son  of  the  same  name,  who  was  a 
poet  of  some  note  in  his  day,  paid  a  pious  tribute  to  his 
father's  memory.  But  Walter  Harte  the  elder  is  well 
deserving  of  special  notice,  and  was  evidently  so  regarded 
by  his  contemporaries ;  for  when  Dr.  Eawlinson  was 
making  collections  for  his  projected  History  of  the  Non- 
jurors he  made  minute  inquiries  about  him  through  a  Mr. 
Tomkins,  of  Axminster.  Harte  replied,  June  26,  1733, 
saying  that  he  was  born  on  SS.  Simon  and  Jude's  Day, 
1651,  in  the  parish  of  St.  Aldate's,  Oxford,  his  family  being 
'  plebean '  on  both  sides  ;  was  educated  in  a  school  at 
Oxford,  then  called  Silvester's  School  in  the  parish  of  All 
Saints',  Oxford,  for  three  years,  and  for  five  at  the  Free 
School  at  Abingdon  ;  was  elected  from  thence  Scholar  of 
Pembroke,  Oxon.,  on  Mr.  Tisdale's  foundation  in  1667  and 
fellow  in  1674,  having  graduated  in  1671  ;  was  ordained 
by  Dr.  Fell  in  1676.  Then  he  answers  the  •  Querie  '  about 
his  «  Preferments,  Patrons,  &c.' : 

The  Vioarige  of  S1  Mary  Magdaline  Chnr:  Taunton,  Prebend 
of  Ashill  in  the  Ch:  of  Wells,  Prebend  of  Bristol  [all  in  1684J, 
Patron  of  the  Ch.  at  Taunton,  Sir  \Ym  Portman,  Bart. ;  of  the 
I  of  Ashill,  L'1  Bi'  of  Ba:  and  Wells,  Pater  Mens:  of  the 
Prebend  of  Bris.  U  Keeper  North,  and  begged  of  him  by  Sir 
W.  Portman,  to  be  given  to  the  Vicar  of  S*  Mary  Mag.  Taunton, 
i  noouragement.1 

This  account  is  slightly  at  variance  with  thai  given  in 
the  Life  <>f  Walter  Earte,  the  younger,  prefixed  to  bis 

The  letter  ii  given  to  one  oi  the  Ms.  booka  belonging  to  Bt.  John's 
College  Library,  I 


WALTEE  HAETE  185 

poems  in  '  Anderson's  British  Poets,'  which,  however,  may 
be  quoted  for  what  it  is  worth : 

His  father  had  been  Fellow  of  Pembroke  College,  Oxford, 
Prebendary  of  Bristol,  and  Canon  of  Wells,  but  he  was  dis- 
possessed of  his  preferments  in  1691  for  refusing  to  take  the 
oaths.  He  obtained  his  prebend  of  Bristol  by  recommendation 
of  Lord  Chancellor  Jeffries,  in  return  for  the  manly  freedom 
with  which  he  remonstrated  against  his  severities  at  Taunton. 
By  the  kindness  of  Bishops  Kidder,  Hooper  and  Wynne,  he 
received  the  little  profits  of  his  canonry  of  Wells  till  the  time  of 
his  death,  which  happened  at  Kentbury  [sic]  in  Bucks,  Feb.  10, 
1735.  Lord  Chancellor  Harcourt  offered  him  a  bishopric  from 
Queen  Anne  ;  but  this  favour  was  declined  with  grateful  acknow- 
ledgments.1 

Harte  lived  for  many  years  in  studious  retirement, 
having  many  friends  of  the  most  varied  type  who  all  loved 
and  respected  him.  In  1724  he  must  have  been  living  at 
Chipping  Norton,  for  his  son,  the  poet,  matriculated  in 
that  year  at  St.  Mary  Hall,  and  is  entered  as  '  son  of 
Walter  Harte,  of  Chipping  Norton,  Clerk  '  ;  but  he  was  at 
Kintbury  in  1733,  for  he  dates  the  letter  quoted  above 
from  thence,  and  there  he  died  in  1735.  The  younger 
Walter  Harte  paid  a  poetical  tribute  to  his  father  with 
the  suggestive  title  '  Macarius  [the  Blessed],  or  The  Con- 
fessor,' from  which  the  following  extract  may  be  given  : 

When  crowns  were  doubtful,  and  when  numbers  steered 
As  honour  prompted  or  self-interest  veered 

Our  hero  paus'd — and,  weighing  either  side, 
Took  poverty  and  conscience  for  his  guide ; 
For  he  who  thinks  he  suffers  for  his  God, 
Deserves  a  pardon  though  he  feels  the  rod. 
Yet  blam'd  he  none  (Himself  in  honour  clear), 
That  were  a  crime  had  cost  his  virtue  dear  ! 
Thus  all  he  lov'd,  and  party  he  had  none, 
Except  with  Charity,  and  Heaven  alone. 
1  Life  of  Walter  Harte,  the  younger,  prefixed  to  his  '  Poems  '  in  Ander- 
son's British  Poets,  ix.  515  et  soq. 


186  THE  NONJURORS 

B l  sometimes  would  to  thy  cottage  tend, 

An  artful  enemy,  but  seeming  friend  ; 

Conscious  of  having  planned  thy  worldly  fate, 

He  could  not  love  thee  and  he  durst  not  hate. 

But  the  seraphic  Ken  was  all  thy  own, 

And  he  who  long  declined  Ken's  vacant  throne,2 

Begging  with  earnest  zeal  to  be  deny'd. 

By  worldlings  laught  at,  and  by  fools  decry'd  ; 

Dodwell  was  thine,  the  humble  and  resigned 

Nelson,  with  Christian  elegance  of  mind ; 

And  he  whose  tranquil  mildness  from  afar, 

Spoke  him  a  distant,  but  a  brilliant  star.3 

These  all  forsook  their  homes — nor  sighed  nor  wept, 

Mammon  they  freely  gave,  but  God  they  kept. 

Ah  !  look  on  honour  with  Macarius'  eyes, 

Snares  to  the  good  and  dangers  to  the  wise. 

Accept  this  verse,  to  make  thy  mem'ry  live, 

Lamented  shade  !  'tis  all  thy  son  can  give. 

O  Pope,  too  great  to  copy  or  to  praise  : 
Forgive  the  grateful  tribute  of  my  lays. 
By  thee  the  good  Macarius  was  approved, 
Whom  Fenton  honoured  and  Philotheus  4  loved. 


But  the  great  Tory  University  never  produced  such  a 
secession  en  masse  to  the  Nonjuring  cause  as  occurred 
in  one  college  at  her  sister  University,  which  was  more 
inclined  to  the  Whig  side.  Indeed,  the  number  of 
resident  members  who  became  avowed  Nonjurors  was 
much  greater  at  Cambridge  than  it  was  at  Oxford.  But 
this,  though  apparently,  is  not  really,  inconsistent  with 
the  fact  that  Oxford  was  the  chief  stronghold  of  Jacobi- 
tism ;  for  no  place  illustrates  more  strikingly  than  Oxford 
a  fact  already  intimated,  that  '  Jacobite  '  and  '  Nonjuror  " 
arc  by  no  means   convertible   terms.      From   the  great 

'!>  Bornei  :  Bishop  Hooper.  a  John  Krttl.w.  11. 

B   bop  Kan.    tot  l'.nton,  Nfl  infra,  p.  858  9.    Pop*  was  b  steady 
brk  "I  Mid  patron  <>f  the  younger  Harte. 


CAMBEIDGE  NONJUKOES  187 

Dean  of  Christ  Church  (Atterbury)  downwards  there  were 
members  of  the  University  who  were  Jacobites  to  the 
core,  but  never  •  scrupled  the  oaths.'  And  from  a  political 
point  of  view  one  can  understand  their  position.  If  they 
really  wanted  '  the  King  over  the  water  '  to  return,  their 
policy  was  not,  Achilles-like,  to  sulk  in  their  tents  ;  that 
was  not  the  way  to  bring  their  Briseis  back.  If  they 
meant  to  produce  any  effect  they  must  enter  into  the 
arena ;  the  House  of  Lords  must  not  be  left  to  Presby- 
terian bishops ;  the  immense  influence  which  the  national 
pulpits  could  still  exercise  politically  must  not  be  left 
to  Whig  orators.  In  rather  a  different  sense  from  that 
which  the  poet  intended,  they  might  say 

Princes  and  lords  may  flourish,  or  may  fade. 

A  breath  can  make  them,  as  a  breath  hath  made. 

And  a  breath  could  also  wwmake  a  monarch  with  a  mere 
parliamentary  title  ;  therefore,  they  must  put  themselves 
in  positions  where  they  could  use  their  breath  to  swell 
the  blast.  But  the  political  standpoint  is  not  that  of  the 
present  work ;  therefore,  we  must  ignore  all  these  gentle- 
men, whether  at  Oxford  or  Cambridge  or  elsewhere,  and 
return  to  those  at  Cambridge  who  were,  qua  Churchmen, 
conscientious  Nonjurors. 

The  first  who  claim  our  notice  are,  of  course,  the  cele- 
brated socii  ejecti  of  St.  John's  College,  some  of  whom 
were  ejected  after  the  Revolution,  and  some  after  the 
accession  of  George  I.  The  history  of  these  memorable 
deprivations  is  interesting,  among  other  reasons  because 
it  illustrates  a  fact  already  noticed — namely,  that  residents 
in  a  University  were  not  so  much  forced  to  show  their 
hands  as  those  who  were  settled  in  parochial  cures.  An 
indisputable  authority  writes : 

The  true  account  of  the  ejection  [the  second,  in  1716-7]  is 
this :  The  Statutes  require  the  Fellows,  as  soon  as  they  are  of 


188  THE  NONJURORS 

that  standing,  to  take  the  B.D.  degree ;  so  that  after  the  Revolu- 
tion, twenty-four  of  the  Fellows  not  coming  into  the  oath  of 
allegiance,  and  the  statutes  requiring  them  to  commence  B.D., 
they  were  constrained  to  part  with  their  Fellowships.  As  to 
those  who  had  taken  that  degree  before  the  Revolution,  there 
was  nothing  to  eject  them  upon  till  their  refusal  of  the  Abjura- 
tion Oath  exacted  on  the  accession  of  George  I.1 

In  other  words,  there  were  some  who  retained  their 
fellowships  at  least  a  quarter  of  a  century  longer  than 
they  would  have  been  able  to  retain  any  benefice.  In 
several  instances  the  very  same  individuals  who  continued 
to  live  at  Cambridge  and  to  retain  their  fellowships  had 
been  compelled  to  give  up  all  preferments  outside  the 
University.  The  natural  but  whimsical  result  was  that 
at  St.  John's  College  the  seniors,  qua  Nonjurors,  were 
the  juniors,  and  the  juniors  the  seniors.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  master  of  the  college  at  the  time  of  the 
Kevolution,  Dr.  Humphry  Gower,  though  he  took  the 
oaths  himself,  had,  to  say  the  least,  '  a  reserved  kindness  ' 
for  the  Nonjurors,  and  was  most  unwilling  to  proceed  to 
extremities  against  them.  'He  was  suspected,'  we  are 
told,  '  of  favouring  the  Nonjurors.'  Narcissus  Luttrell 
records  in  his  Diary :  '  25  July,  1693.— A  Mandamus  is 
sealed  and   sent    to    Dr.  Gower,    Master    of    St.  John's 

the  C<dkgc  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  Cambridge,  by  Tho. 
JIal.cr,  li.D.,  ejected  Fellow;  edited  for  the  Syndics  of  the  University  Press, 
1  •:•  John  I!.  B.  Mayor,  part  ii.  p.  1010.  See  also,  The  History  of  St.  John's 
(  oll,Vr,  ( Cambridge  (( 'ollege  Histories),  by  J.  Bass  Mullinger,  Esq.,  pp.  215-6. 
Mr.  Bass  Mullinge,  makes  the  number  of  ejections  fewer  than  the  popular 
1,1  torian   do,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  ia  right;  f or  he  is  a  far  better 

authority  than  tiny  an-;   and  moreover,  he  has  kindly  given    to  lh.    , 
Pfriter  the  following  explanation,  which   is  conclusive:    'The  evidence  on 

which  the  statement  re  ti  i   giy<  d  by  Dr.  Dunn  in  an  appendix  to  Stukeley*i 

.   printed  by  the   Nurtees  Society  in  1882;   and  more  fully  m 

;    Caleb   I'aniliaiii.       lie   there   gives  the  Fellowship    List   in 

L698  complete,  the  name     ,,f   those  who  were  to  be  ejected  being  marked 

'"ll  :L  ""    ;  this,  he  impiie  .  is  taken  from  the  List  preserved  in  tin 

name    of  „ll   the  ejected  will  be  found   at   the   end    Ql 

tin     ',, 


THOMAS  BAKEE  189 

Colledge  in  Cambridge,  to  turn  out  20  Fellows  of  that 
Colledge  refusing  to  take  the  oaths.' 1  Dr.  Gower  resisted 
both  this  and  a  second  mandamus  on  different  pleas ;  he 
was  a  friend  and  correspondent  of  several  Nonjurors,  but 
our  business  is  not  with  their  sympathisers,  but  with  the 
Nonjurors  themselves,  and  the  first  place  among  these 
socii  ejecti  must  certainly  be  given  to 

Thomas  Baker  (1656-1740).  He  belonged  to  an 
ancient  family  in  the  county  of  Durham,  which  had  long 
been  distinguished  for  its  loyalty,  and  was  educated  at 
Durham  School  until  the  age  of  sixteen,  when  he  pro- 
ceeded to  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge.  This  was  his 
home,  with  only  three  years'  interval,  for  the  rest  of  his 
long  life ;  in  other  words,  he  was  an  inmate  of  St.  John's 
for  no  less  than  sixty-five  years.  He  became  successively 
scholar  and  fellow,  and,  having  received  Holy  Orders, 
continued  to  reside  at  Cambridge  until  he  was  appointed,, 
by  Bishop  Crewe,  rector  of  Long  Newton  in  his  native 
county.  He  was  for  a  time  in  great  favour  with  the 
bishop,  and  was  thought  to  be  on  the  high  road  to  further 
preferments,  the  rich  living  of  Sedgefield  and  a  golden 
prebend  in  Durham  Cathedral  being  talked  of  for  him.. 
But  an  alliance  between  two  such  very  different  men  as 
Lord  Crewe  and  Thomas  Baker  could  not  last  long :  the 
one  was  all  for  interest,  the  other  all  for  principle.  When 
the  star  of  King  James  II.  was  in  the  ascendant,  who 
could  bow  down  to  him  more  subserviently  than  Bishop 
Crewe  ?  When  it  was  on  the  decline,  who  could  desert 
him  more  readily  ?  Baker  took  just  the  opposite  line ; 
he  threw  away  all  chance  of  preferment  from  Bishop 
Crewe  by  distinctly  refusing  to  read  King  James's  Declara- 
tion of  Indulgence  when  the  bishop  required  him  as  his 

1  See  Additions  to  Cole's  Life  of  Humphrey  Gower,  24th  Master,  in 
Baker's  History  of  St.  John's  College,  pp.  988-98. 


190  THE   NONJURORS 

chaplain  to  do  so  in  the  episcopal  chapel  at  Auckland. 
But  he  thought  the  deposition  (as  he  would  have  called 
it)  of  King  James  equally  illegal,  and  therefore  he  clung 
to  him  in  his  adversity,  though  he  had  resisted  him  in 
his  prosperity,  resigned  his  living  in  1690 l  because  he 
would  not  take  the  new  oaths,  and  returned  to  Cambridge, 
which  he  never  left  more.  As  he  had  taken  his  B.D. 
degree  just  before  the  Revolution  (1688),  there  was  nothing 
to  deprive  him  of  his  fellowship,  and  he  retained  it  for 
many  years  longer.  Some  say  that  he  was  not  inter- 
fered with  through  the  intervention  of  '  a  great  man  ' 
(the  Earl  of  Derby).  But  surely  there  was  no  need  of 
any  intervention  ;  all  who  had  taken  the  B.D.  degree 
were  safe  from  interference.  He  employed  his  ample 
leisure  in  amassing  vast  stores  of  varied  learning,  which 
were  always  at  the  service  of  all  who  desired  to  profit  by 
them,  whether  they  agreed  with  his  religious  opinions  or 
not.  He  helped,  in  one  way  or  another,  John  Walker  in 
his  '  Sufferings  of  the  Clergy,'  Bishop  Burnet  in  his 
*  History  of  the  Reformation,'  John  Strype,  a  personal 
friend,  in  many  parts  of  his  works,  especially  in  his  Lives 
of  Parker  and  Whitgift ;  John  Smith,  of  Durham,  in  his 
edition  of  Bede's  '  Ecclesiastical  History  ' ;  Samuel  Knight 

1  In  Dyer's  History  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  ii.  260-1,  there  is 
4  A  Letter  of  Mr.  Baker's,  addressed  to  a  Friend,  on  his  resigning  his  Living,1 
which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  man,  that  ao  extract  must  be  inserted  : 
'  I  must  desire  you  once  more  to  return  my  humble  thanks  to  my  Lord 
'Bishop  Crewel,  as  for  all  his  favours,  so  particularly,  that  my  living  has 
tx  •  n  re  erred  to  me  so  long;  and  that  my  Lord  may  not  sutler  by  it,  1  have 
nothing  further  to  desire,  only  this,  that  my  Lord  would  now  dispose  of  it. 
I  am  very  sensible  of  his  Lordship's  favour,  and  with  how  much  goodness 
1  have  ix-.ii  treated  in  the  whole  affair,  and  therefore  l  do  now  part  with  it 
with  ■  tnuoh  thankfulness  as  1  did  receive  it.  i  am  oot  desirous  to  know 
mysuooessor;  whoever  my  Lord  thinks  tit  to  enooeed  me,  shall  beaooepl 

able  to  me,  and  1  shall  not  only  be   In  charity  with   him,  but  shall   have  a 

Eriendj  hip  f<>r  him  ;  and  if  anything  further  lie  required  <>f  me,  to  make  the 
living  more  i  sty  to  him,  I  shall  be  ready  to  do  it  upon  the  lea-t  Intimation 
of  his  Lord  hip's  pit  asure.1 


THOMAS  BAKEE  191 

in  his  '  Life  of  Erasmus,'  Hilkiah  Bedford  in  his  edition 
of  the  '  Life  of  John  Barwick ' ;  Brown  Willis,  Ralph 
Thoresby,  Thomas  Hearne  in  their  antiquarian,  and  John 
Anstis  in  his  heraldic  works  ;  Francis  Peck  in  his  '  Desi- 
derata Curiosa,'  Conyers  Middleton  in  his  '  Dissertation 
on  the  Origin  of  Printing,'  John  Tanner  in  his  edition  of 
his  brother  Bishop  Thomas  Tanner's  '  Notitia  Monastica,' 
Zachary  Grey  in  his  '  Strictures  on  Neal's  History  of  the 
Puritans,'  Father  Courayer  in  his  defence  of  our  English 
ordinations,  Archbishop  Wake  in  his  '  State  of  the 
Gallican  Church,'  Bishop  White  Kennett  in  several  of 
his  publications,  and  probably  Dr.  Rawlinson  in  his  pro- 
jected '  History  of  Eton  College.'  Most  of  them  express 
in  their  prefaces  their  obligations  to  him,  and  Wake  and 
Kennett  strove  to  repay  these  obligations  in  a  substantial 
way,  the  former  by  offering  to  present  any  one  of  his 
friends  whom  he  chose  to  name,  as  he  could  not  accept 
preferment  himself,  to  a  living  of  two  hundred  pounds  a 
year  (a  considerable  sum  in  those  days),  the  other  by 
reserving  for  him  his  best  pieces  of  preferment  in  case  he 
should  be  induced  to  take  the  oaths.  That  event  seemed 
at  one  time  by  no  means  impossible.  Baker  was  a  Non- 
juror of  the  type  of  Ken  and  Frampton,  not  that  of 
Turner  and  Hickes.  He  had  not  the  faintest  inclination 
to  disturb  the  government  either  in  Church  or  State. 
With  Jacobites  qua  Jacobites  he  had  no  connection  what- 
ever, and  on  the  '  Church  point '  as  well  as  the  '  State 
point '  he  thoroughly  agreed  with  those  Nonjurors  who, 
like  William  Law,  did  not  separate  from  what  used  to  be 
called  '  the  established  worship.'  '  My  principle,'  he  writes 
to  Hearne  quite  frankly,  'is  not  so  high  as  you  may 
imagine.  I  hold  communion  with  the  Established  Church ; 
the  new  communion  I  do  not  understand.'  '     With  him 

1  See  Reliquice  Hearniance,  iii.  61. 


192  THE  NONJURORS 

it  was  simply  a  personal  matter  of  conscience.  Having 
taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  one  king,  he  could  not 
conscientiously  take  it  to  another.  When  King  James 
died  he  was  half  inclined  to  comply;  but  then  the 
wretched  Abjuration  Oath  was  enjoined,  and  that  blocked 
the  way.  When  this  oath  was  re-enacted  and  more 
strictly  enforced  after  the  Rebellion  of  1715,  he  forfeited 
his  fellowship  rather  than  take  it.  He  was  just  the  sort 
of  man  for  whom  such  endowments  as  fellowships  were 
specially  designed.  '  Learned  leisure  '  was  what  he  knew 
how  to  employ  so  well,  not  merely  for  his  own  enlighten- 
ment, but  for  that  of  innumerable  others ;  and  to  him 
emphatically  applies  the  righteously  indignant  protest  of 
Professor  Mayor  against  '  this  outrage  so  abhorrent  to 
the  professed  principles  of  its  authors '  of  ejecting  men 
who  '  had  sinned,  not  by  denying,  but  merely  by  declining 
to  affirm  the  omnipotence  of  parliament  to  dispense  with 
oaths.' l  Baker  himself  felt  some  soreness  at  the  loss  of 
his  fellowship,  which  he  never  quite  overcame.  It  was 
not  so  much  the  loss  of  income;  he  had  still  a  small 
patrimony,  which,  with  occasional  supplements,  sufficed 
for  his  simple  wants ;  in  fact,  he  was  '  passing  rich  on 
forty  pounds  a  year' — that  was  literally  the  exact  sum. 
But  the  ignominy  of  the  ejection  galled  him,  and  he 
showed  a  dignified  resentment  by  ever  afterwards  de- 
scribing himself  as  sarins  eject  us — '  a  silent  appeal '  (once 
again  to  quote  Professor  Mayor)  '  from  Philip  drunk  to 
Philip  sober."''  He  laid,  indeed,  the  blame  at  the  wrong 
door  when  he  thought  his  old  friend,  Dr.  Jenkin,  then 
l  ot  St.  John's,  might  have  saved  him  the  ignominy 
There  is  BOmething  very  touching  in  the  superscription 
letter  from   Dr.  Jenkin  addressed  to  'Mr.  Baker, 

'  'To  bh(  Etttte,1  i>  i\.    Pretax  to  the  Edition  ol  the  Lift  of  ii 
ther.  -  Ibid, 


THOMAS'  BAKEE  193 

fellow  of  St.  John's ' :  '  I  was  so  then  ;  I  little  thought 
it  should  be  by  him  that  I  am  now  no  fellow  ;  but  God 
is  just,  and  I  am  a  sinner.' l  It  really,  however,  was  Dr. 
Jenkin's  misfortune,  not  his  fault,  that  he  had  to  execute 
the  sentence  against  an  old  friend  whom  he  esteemed  and 
loved.  It  was  a  peculiarly  ungracious  task,  because  for 
twenty  years  Jenkin  had  held  the  same  opinions  as  Baker, 
and  had  suffered,  like  him,  the  loss  of  all  his  preferments 
outside  Cambridge.  But  he  had  submitted,  and  in  1711 
had  accepted  the  mastership  of  the  college ;  and  he  was 
now  bound  to  do  his  duty  in  that  capacity;  for  peremptory 
'  notice  came  from  above  '  that  the  non-taking  of  the  oath 
by  the  fellows,  of  whom  Baker  was  one,  could  be  over- 
looked no  longer.  The  college  did  its  best  for  one  of 
whom  it  had  every  reason  to  be  proud.  Baker  was  per- 
mitted to  retain  his  rooms  in  college  as  a  '  commoner- 
master,'  and  did  retain  them  until  his  death  nearly  a 
quarter  of  a  century  later.  It  is  sad  to  have  to  relate 
that  he  suffered  the  penalty  of  old  age  in  outliving  his 
generation,  or,  perhaps  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say, 
of  living  into  a  generation  in  which  his  old  Church 
principles  were  temporarily  out  of  fashion ;  for  there  are 
few  with  any  pretensions  to  be  Church  people  who  would 
not  now  sympathise  with  Baker  rather  than  with  those 
who  in  his  old  age  regarded  him  as  an  anachronism. 
The  following  passage  occurs  in  Cole's  Life  of  Dr.  W.  S. 
Powell,  in  the  '  History  of  St.  John's  College  ' : 

Dr.  W.  S.  Powell,  elected  Master  of  S*-  Johns  in  1765,2  is 
said  to  have  held  Mr.  Baker  in  the  most  sovereign  contempt, 
insomuch  as  not  to  bear  with  common  patience  that  any  one 
should  call  him,  as  most  people  were  disposed  to  do,  the  worthy 

1  See  History  of  St.  John's  College,  p.  1010. 

2  That  would  be  twenty-five  years  after  Baker's  death ;  but  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  master  reflected  the  opinion  of  others  who  knew,  and  may  very 
likely  himself  have  remembered,  Baker. 

O 


194  THE  NONJURORS 

Mr.  Baker,  which  would  immediately  raise  his  choler,  make  him 
fly  out  into  a  passion,  and  abuse  him,  and  call  his  MS.  History 
of  Sl  John's  a  collection  of  lyes.  Mr.  Baker  might  have  had 
bifl  failings,  and  at  an  extreme  old  age,  and  after  an  expulsion 
from  his  fellowship  in  a  society  in  which  he  chose  to  spend  his 
days,  perhaps  might  be  peevish  towards  the  decline  of  life  ; 
especially  as  new  manners  and  new  opinions,  totally  different 
from  his  own,  might  disgust  him  upon  occasion.  But  his 
integrity  and  veracity  I  will  never  call  in  question.  Also  Dr. 
Heberden  said  he  used  to  be  peevish  and  out  of  humour  with 
people's  jostling  against,  and  crowding  upon  him  as  he  came 
out  of  chapel ;  natural  enough  in  an  old  man,  who  had  been 
used  to  decenter  manners.  Dr.  Heberden  was  a  most  decent- 
behaved,  but  vehement  party  man,  strong  against  subscription 
to  Articles  and  Liturgy ;  so  that,  no  doubt,  Mr.  Baker's  strict 
adherence  to  old  Church  of  England  principles  might  early 
prejudice  Dr.  Heberden  against  him,  who  had  a  more  enlarged 
way  of  thinking  upon  these  matters.  ...  I  make  no  sort 
of  doubt  but  that  the  same  kind  of  prejudice,  though  not 
exactly  similar,  acted  in  the  breast  of  Dr.  Powell,  who  had  a 
strange  mixture  and  complication  of  opinions,  as  averse  to 
those  of  Mr.  Baker  as  light  to  darkness  (pp.  1051-2). 

But  Baker's  character  and  learning  were  appreciated 
by  some  whom  one  would  have  hardly  expected  to  do  so. 
One  is  not  surprised  to  find  Hearne  writing  that  '  his 
goodness  and  humanity  are  as  charming  to  those  who 
have  the  happiness  of  his  conversation  as  his  learning  is 
profitable  to  his  correspondents,'  !  and  accounting  for  the 
greater  help  which  Dr.  Rawlinson  found  at  Cambridge 
thi n  at  Oxford  in  his  investigations  about  the  Nonjurors 
bj  the  fact  that  •  a  Mr.  Baker  is  to  be  met  with  but  in 
t'.'W  places';2  nor  to  find  Zachary  Grey  describing  his 
4  most  worthy  friend  Mr.  Tho.  Baker  '  as  *  a  person  uni- 
versally e  teemed  for  his  great  knowledge  in  almost  all 
the  branches  of  literature,  and  who,  as  he  is  the  most 
knowing  in  our   English   history  and  antiquitys,  so  he  is 

i.  313.  ■  Ibid.  iii.  160, 


THOMAS  BAKEE— JOHN   BILLEES  195 

the  most  communicative  man  living  '  ; l  no,  nor  yet  to  find 
William  Whiston  speaking  in  the  highest  terms  of  him 
in  his  Memoir  ;  for  though  Whiston  held  most  heterodox 
and  eccentric  views  he  was  a  very  honest  man,  and  tried 
to  recognise  good  wherever  he  found  it.  But  one  really 
would  not  have  thought  Warburton  and  Baker  to  be 
kindred  spirits,  and  yet  Bishop  Warburton  writes  :  '  Good 
old  Mr.  Baker  has  been  very  obliging.  The  people  of 
St.  John's  almost  adore  the  man ;  for  as  there  is  much  in 
him  to  esteem,  much  to  pity,  and  nothing  (but  his  Virtue 
and  Learning)  to  envy,  he  has  all  the  justice  at  present 
done  to  him,  that  few  people  of  merit  have  till  they  are 
dead.' 2  Still  less,  perhaps,  would  one  expect  to  find  Bishop 
Burnet,  who  was  not,  as  a  rule,  partial  to  Nonjurors, 
paying  him  elaborate  compliments.  Baker,  on  his  part, 
is  one  of  the  very  few  Nonjurors  who  have  a  good  word  to 
say  about  Bishop  Burnet.3  And  least  of  all  would  one 
have  imagined  that  Horace  Walpole  (Earl  of  Orford) 
would  have  been  so  attracted  by  him  as  to  write  his 
biography.  It  is  but  a  slight,  inadequate  performance, 
for  there  were  sides  of  Baker's  character  with  which  the 
writer  had  no  sympathy ;  but  the  mere  fact  that  it  was 
written  at  all  speaks  volumes  for  Baker's  attractive- 
ness. The  standard  biography  of  Baker  is,  of  course,  the 
'  Memoirs  '  compiled  by  Robert  Masters  from  the  papers 
of  Zachary  Grey. 

The  name  that  is  most  frequently  coupled  with 
Thomas  Baker  in  connection  with  his  college  is  that  of 
John  Bitters,  who,  like  Baker,  was  ejected,  late  in  life, 

1  An  Impartial  Examination  of  the  second  volume  of  Mr.  Daniel  Neat's 
History  of  the  Puritans,  p.  62,  note. 

2  Warburtoniana,  in  Maty's  Neio  Review,  p.  144. 

3  See  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of  Thomas  Baker,  of  St.  John's 
College,  Cambridge,  from  the  Papers  of  Dr.  Zachary  Grey,  by  Eobert 
Masters,  pp.  32-3. 


!96  THE  NONJURORS 

from  his  fellowship  at  St.  John's  on  January  21,  1716-7. 
On  that  fatal  occasion  Sir  Paul  Whichcote  writes  to 
Baker:  'I  should  have  been  glad  to  have  done  Mr. 
Billers  and  yourself  service  on  any  account.'  ■  William 
Whiston  says : 

Two  of  the  Nonjurors  of  St.  John's  College,  Mr.  Billers  and 
Mr.  Baker,  loved  their  religion  and  their  country  as  well  as 
any  juror  whatever ;  but  having  once  taken  an  oath  to  King 
James,  they  could  not  satisfy  their  consciences  in  breaking  it, 
whilst  he  lived,  for  any  consideration  whatever.  These  two 
were  long  my  particular  acquaintances  ;  and  I  well  remem- 
ber that  when  King  James  died  they  began  to  deliberate 
about  taking  the  oaths  and  coming  into  the  Government, 
till  the  Abjuration  Oath,  unfortunate  in  that  respect,  had  to 
he  taken.2 

And  Professor  Mayor  quotes  a  passage  from  Heed's  Diary : 

October  12,  1711.— Mr.  Burrell  contested  with  Mr.  Enin,  of 
Sydney,  for  the  rectory  of  Ovington  in  Norfolk,  and  lost  it  by 
one  vote  (85  to  86),  but  Enin  had  two  Nonjurors  who  voted  for 
him,  viz.,  Mr.  Baker  and  Mr.  Billers,  and  though  Mr.  Burrell 
objected  against  their  votes  and  desired  that  the  oaths  might 
be  tendered  to  them,  yet  he  was  overruled  by  Dr.  Laney  and 
Dr.  Ashton.3 

One  gathers  from  such  passages  as  these  that  Mr.  Billers 
and  Mr.  Baker  were  kindred  spirits,  and  were  accus- 
tomed to  act  together.  Billers  was  eight  years  the 
senior,  and  held  college  and  university  offices,  which 
Baker  never  did  ;  but  he  left  nothing  behind  him  to 
perpetuate  his  memory,  and  therefore,  while  his  friend 
Baker  is  known  to  all  scholars,  Billers  has  passed  into 
oblivion.  All  we  know  of  him  is  that  he  was  a  native  of 
Leicestershire,  matriculated  at  Sidney-Sussex  College  in 
HJG7,    whs   elected    fellow   of    St.    John's   in    1671,   and 

1  Set-  Miistir.-,'  tAft  of  Baktr,  p.  :J.r».  ■  Ittmatn,  p.  32. 

•    1'i.f.       .i  Muyor'u  Notes  to  Lift  of  Ambrose  Ihmwicki',  p.  209. 


PRANCIS  ROPER  197 

Public  Orator  in  1681,  but  was  deprived  of  the  latter  post 
in  1689  because  he  refused  to  take  the  oaths  to  William 
and  Mary.1  He  is  described  by  his  friend's  biographer 
as  '  a  truly  learned  and  good  man,' 2  and  with  that  satis- 
factory character  we  must  here  leave  him. 

Another  fellow  who  was  ejected  at  the  same  time  is 
more  definitely  brought  before  us  owing  to  his  connection 
with  that  wonderful  young  man,  Ambrose  Bonwicke. 

Francis  Boper  (1642-1719)  was  a  native  of  the  county 
of  Durham.  He  was,  it  will  be  seen,  considerably  older 
than  the  two  last  mentioned,  and  was  nearing  the  end  of 
his  life  when  he  was  ejected.  He  was  elected  fellow  in 
1666,  so  he  held  his  fellowship  for  nearly  forty  years,  but, 
like  Baker,  he  lost  all  other  preferments  at  the  time  of 
the  Revolution.  He  was  collated  by  Bishop  Gunning  to 
the  vicarage  of  Waterbeach,  near  Cambridge,  in  January 
1677-8,  became  Prebendary  of  Ely  in  1686,  and  in  1687, 
having  resigned  Waterbeach,  was  appointed  rector  of 
Northwold,  in  Norfolk.  Refusing  to  take  the  new  oaths 
he  was  deprived  of  his  prebend  and  rectory  in  1690,  and, 
like  Baker,  remained  at  Cambridge  for  the  rest  of  his  life. 
He  was  not,  as  has  been  sometimes  stated,  Ambrose 
Bonwicke's  college  tutor,  but  he  acted  more  than  a  father's 
part  towards  him,  being,  in  a  way,  his  spiritual  director, 
medical  adviser,  and  classical  and  mathematical  instructor. 
He  is  the  '  Mr.  R.'  so  frequently  referred  to  in  Bonwicke's 
Life,3  and  the  affectionate  relationship  between  the  fellow 
and  the  undergraduate  forms  a  strange  contrast  to  similar 
relationships  as  described  by  men  of  both  Universities  in 
the  eighteenth  century. 

Another  of   the  elders  who  were  ejected  in  1716-7 

1  Annals  of  Cambridge,  by  C.  H.  Cooper,  and  MS.  book  belonging  to 
St.  John's  College  Library. 

2  Masters'  Life  of  Baker,  p.  35. 

3  See  Life  of  Ambrose  Bonwicke,  pp.  24,  55,  60,  101,  and  passim. 


198  THE  NONJURORS 

attained  considerable  reputation  in  his  day  as  a  writer. 
Thomas  Browne  (1654-1741),  a  Middlesex  man,  was  entered 
at  St.  John's  in  January  1671-2,  and  admitted  fellow  in 
March  1677-8;  he  wrote  several  works,  the  most  impor- 
tant of  which  were  a  '  Defence  of  our  English  Ordination 
against  the  Nag's  Head  Fable,'  and  an  answer  to  Bishop 
Stillingfleet's  famous  discourse,  '  The  Unreasonableness 
of  a  New  Separation.'  Like  many  Nonjurors,  he  seems 
to  have  found,  when  he  was  turned  out  of  his  fellowship 
in  his  old  age,  a  friend  and  patron  without  whose  aid  he 
would  have  passed  his  last  days  in  penury.  This  friend 
was  Sir  Francis  Leicester,  of  Nether  Tabley,  grandson  of 
the  famous  antiquary,  Peter  Leicester,  and  ancestor  of  the 
present  Lord  De  Tabley. 

The  four  that  have  been  mentioned  were  quiet,  in- 
offensive men,  who  had  not  the  slightest  wish  to  disturb 
the  Government ;  and  the  same  may  be  presumed  of  the 
rest  of  the  socii  ejecti  who  are  now  little  more  than  shadows 
to  us.  But  among  those  who  were  ejected  from  their 
fellowships  at  St.  John's  twenty-six  years  earlier  there 
was  at  least  one  who  held  a  very  prominent  position  both 
as  a  Nonjuror  and  a  Jacobite,  and  this  will  be  the  best 
place  in  which  to  trace  his  career. 

Hilhiah  Bedford  (1663-1724)  was  of  Lincolnshire 
extraction,  his  grandfather  being  a  Quaker  who  migrated 
from  Sibsey,  near  Boston,  to  London,  where  he  settled  as 
a  stationer.  His  father  was  a  mathematical  instrument 
maker  in  Hozier  Lane,  near  West  Smithfield,  where 
Hilkiali  was  horn,  July  'I'A,  1668.  He  was  educated  at 
Bradley,  in  Suffolk,  and  in  1679  proceeded  to  St.  John's 
College,  Cambridge,  where  he  was  elected  the  first  scholar 
on   tlie   foundation   of   bis  maternal   grandfather,  William 

Plat.     He  took  bis  B.A.  degree  in  L683,  and  was  e 

felloe    of   St.  John's,  L686,      Be   was   instituted,   possibly 


HILKIAH  BEDFORD  199 

through  the  influence  of  his  kind  friend,  Heneage  Finch, 
second  Earl  of  Winchilsea,  to  the  small  living  of  Whit- 
tering,  in  Northants,  in  1687.  At  the  ^Revolution,  refusing 
to  take  the  oaths,  he  lost  both  his  fellowship  and  his 
living,  and  had  recourse  to  tuition,  acting  as  travelling 
tutor  to  young  gentlemen  and  keeping  a  boarding-house 
for  Westminster  scholars,  which  was  so  successful  that  he 
made  a  considerable  fortune.  He  identified  himself  with 
the  more  advanced  section  of  the  Nonjurors,  being  perhaps 
the  closest  and  most  confidential  friend  of  Hickes,  who 
bequeathed  to  him  all  his  manuscripts  and  letters,  and 
copies  of  all  his  printed  works.1  It  is  said  that  Hickes 
intimated  his  wish  that  Bedford  should  write  his  Life 
if  anyone  did,  and  that  Bedford  commenced  the  task  but 
never  completed  it.  He  was  also  a  friend  of  Thomas 
Smith,  who  gave  the  following  particulars  about  him  to 
Hearne  in  1710  : 

To  satisfy  your  curiosity  about  what  Mr-  Bedford  has 
published,  I  know  but  of  two  things,  wch  hee  hath  done  lately, 
&  they  are  both  Translations,  of  the  '  History  of  Oracles,  and 
the  Continuation  of  it,'  out  of  French  :  for  the  exactness  and 
elegance  of  wch  I  refer  you  to  Dr  Hickes's  account  of  it,  printed 
before  ye  History  ;  but  the  Prefaces  shew  him  to  be  a  man  of 
good  judgm1  &  learning.  Other  little  things,  wch  hee  has 
published,  his  great  modesty  will  not  surfer  him  to  owne.  Hee 
has  spent  several  yeares,  since  the  Revolution,  in  France  and 
Italy  in  the  company  of  young  Gentlemen  committed  to  his 
conduct :  wch  trust  hee  discharged  with  great  care  &  fidelity 
to  the  great  satisfaction  of  their  Parents  and  Relations.  Hee  is 
a  gentleman  of  an  excellent  understanding,  &  steddy  in  his 
principles,  &  to  say  no  more  of  him,  is  very  well  qualified  for 
the  work,  wch  hee  has  undertaken.2 

1  In  the  MS.  book  belonging  to  St.  John's  Library  there  is  '  A  Catalogue 
of  the  MSS.  papers  committed  to  the  trust  of  Mr.  Hilkiah  Bedford  by  Dr. 
George  Hickes  ;  '  they  are  eighty-seven  in  number,  and  many  of  them  bear 
directly  upon  Nonjuring  subjects. 

2  Hearne's  Collections,  ii.  346. 


200  THE  NONJURORS 

Smith  also  told  Hearne  that  Bedford  was  'one  of  the 
most  zealous  Nonjurors  in  England,'  that  '  he  instilled 
good  Principles  into  the  young  men  he  travelled  with 
in  Foreign  Countries,  and  brought  them  home  compleat 
Gentlemen  and  Scholars,'  and  that  he  was  '  an  admirable 
Scholar  himself,'  '  which  character  of  his,'  he  adds,  '  I 
have  heard  also  from  two  other  very  learned  men.' ' 
Bedford  became  one  of  Hearne's  constant  correspondents. 
The  only  work  bearing  on  the  Nonjuring  question  that 
I  have  seen  attributed  to  him  is  an  able  defence  of  his 
friend  Hickes,  entitled  '  A  Seasonable  and  Modest  Apology 
in  behalf  of  Dr.  G.  Hickes  and  other  Nonjurors  in  a 
Letter  to  Rev.  T.  Wise  on  the  occasion  of  his  Visitation 
at  Canterbury,  June  1,  1710,'  in  which  he  pleads  touch- 
ingly  and  most  justly  '  the  zeal  which  the  Nonjurors  have 
shown  for  our  common  mother  the  Church  of  England, 
and  how  they  have  been  her  constant  Champions  against 
her  adversaries  of  all  sorts  since  the  Revolution.'  He 
might  have  appealed  to  his  own  conduct  as  an  instance, 
for  his  own  pen  was  chiefly  devoted  to  the  defence  of 
Christianity  as  held  by  the  Church  of  England  generally, 
and  not  to  the  Nonjuring  cause  in  particular. 

But,  strangely  enough,  the  book  which  made  Hilkiah 
Bedford  best  known  was  not  one  of  his  own  writing.  In 
1713  there  appeared  a  little  work  entitled  'The  Hereditary 
Right  of  the  Crown  of  England  asserted  :  The  History 
of  the  Succession  since  the  Conquest  cleared :  And  the 
True  English  Constitution  Vindicated  from  the  Mis- 
n  pi <s<  ntation  of  Dr.  Higden's  View  and  Defence.  By  a 
Gentleman.'  It  was  only  one  out  of  many  answers  to 
Dr.  Eigden,  but  it  created  a  greater  sensation  than  any 
<>f  them.  Many  efforts  were  made  to  find  out  who  the 
Lemon*  was;  and  they  seized  the  wrong  'gentle- 

1   Collections,  iii.  B9. 


BEDFORD  AND   'HEREDITARY  RIGHT,   ETC   201 

man '  after  all.  It  must  have  been  the  critical  time  at 
which  the  book  was  published  that  caused  it  to  create  so 
much  alarm,  for  it  is  not  so  violent  as  some  of  the  answers 
to  Higden  which  had  appeared  previously.  It  is  simply 
a  resume  of  English  history  from  the  Norman  Conquest 
downwards,  traversing  Higden's  historical  views  at  every 
point,  touching  slightly  upon  Jewish  and  Boman  history, 
and  examining  Grotius's  exposition  of  the  text  '  Bender 
unto  Cassar,  &c.'  But  the  moral  of  the  book  is  plain,  and 
it  is  not  surprising  that  it  should  have  created  alarm  at 
that  very  critical  juncture.  It  was  well  known  that 
Queen  Anne's  health  was  failing — and  apres?  Was  the 
Hanover  succession  to  be  carried  out,  or  was  the  rightful 
heir  to  be  sent  for  ?  The  book  gave  no  doubtful  answer 
to  this  question.  Hereditary  right  was  the  only  right 
recognised  by  the  Constitution  of  England,  which  acknow- 
ledged no  such  thing  as  a  king  de  facto  and  not  de  jure. 
The  very  first  words  of  the  Introduction  showed  the  gist 
of  the  book : 

The  first  time  that  the  duty  of  paying  allegiance  to  Powers 
in  possession  began  to  be  taught  publicly  in  this  kingdom  was 
during  the  Usurpations  which  succeeded  the  death  of  King 
Charles  I.  In  all  former  Revolutions  the  Princes  who  got 
possession  of  the  Crown  claimed  it  by  some  right,  and  never 
insisted  on  Possession  as  a  right.  But  the  Rump  Parliament 
and  Cromwell,  and  the  following  Usurpers,  having  no  tolerable 
Pretence  to  any  claim  of  right,  their  Friends  were  reduced  to 
a  necessity  of  pleading  Possession  as  a  right  to  Obedience. 

This  suggested  an  analogy  between  the  Bevolution  set- 
tlement, which  secured  the  Hanoverian  succession,  and 
the  Bebellion,  the  violent  feeling  against  which  had  by 
no  means  yet  subsided.  If  hereditary  right  was  the 
only  right  to  the  Crown  there  could  be  no  question,  since 
the  warming-pan  story  was  exploded,  where  that  right 
lay.     The  book,  in  short,    obviously  meant   Jacobitism 


202  THE   NONJURORS 

pore  and  simple,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  it  was  eagerly 
taken  up  by  the  friends  of  the  Chevalier  and  distributed 
gratuitously  far  and. wide;  x  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
its  author  was  eagerly  sought  for  by  the  constituted 
authorities  to  give  an  account  of  himself.  The  search 
resulted  in  tracing  the  delivery  of  the  manuscript  to 
the  printer  to  Hilkiah  Bedford,  who  was  seized,  tried  at 
the  Guildhall,  and  found  guilty  of  *  writing,  printing,  and 
publishing  a  seditious  libel.'  His  punishment  was  a 
severe  one  :  he  was  condemned  to  pay  a  fine  of  one 
thousand  marks,  to  suffer  three  years'  imprisonment,  and 
at  the  expiration  of  the  period  to  find  sureties  for  his 
good  behaviour  during  life.  A  gratuitous  insult  was 
added — viz.,  that  he  should  appear  in  court  with  a  paper 
on  his  hat,  expressing  the  crime  and  the  judgment.  But 
here  the  good  feeling  of  the  Queen,  her  respect  for  the 
Church,  and  possibly  also  a  little  latent  sympathy  with 
the  cause,  stepped  in,  and  by  her  Majesty's  express 
warrant  Bedford  was  spared  the  senseless  outrage.  His 
fine  also  is  said  to  have  been  remitted  ;  but  he  had  to 
suffer  the  full  length  of  the  imprisonment,  and  never 
recovered  from  its  effects.  Great  sympathy  was  shown 
towards  him.  Among  others  Lord  Weymouth  sent  him 
100/.  by  the  hands  of  his  chaplain,  who,  oddly  enough, 
was  the  real  author  of  the  book.  But  if  Bedford  had  not 
been  chivalrous  he  might  have  compromised  at  least 
three  other  people  besides  himself:  (1)  George  Harbin, 
the  author;  (2)  Theophilus  Downes,  the  writer  of  the 
Introduction,  as  already  noticed ;  and  (3)  Kobert  Nelson, 
who  in  conjunction  with  Bedford  revised  all  the  matter 
for  the  press.  It  was,  indeed,  indignantly  denied  both  in 
;liteentli  ;mil  the  nineteenth  centuries  that   Nelson 

'  s'''  ""  kWi  point  Mr.  i  ryqf  England  in  the  BigMmtth 

Cmltai/,  vol.  i.  oh.  i.  p.  1  IT 


HILKIAH  BEDFOED  203 

had  anything  to  do  with  the  matter  ;  but  Mr.  Secretan, 
his  biographer,  has  shown  conclusively  that  he  had,  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  least  degree  inconsistent  with  his 
general  conduct  and  character  in  so  doing.  Nelson  ceased 
to  be  a  Nonjuror,1  but  he  never  ceased  to  be  a  Jacobite, 
nor  even  modified  his  views  on  that  subject.  Bedford 
came  out  of  prison  a  broken  man ;  but  in  1720-1, 
January  25,  he  was  consecrated,  together  with  Ralph 
Taylor,  a  Nonjuring  bishop  in  the  Oratory  in  Gray's  Inn, 
by  Bishops  Spinckes,  Hawes,  and  Gandy.  He  was  thus 
one  of  the  two  first  bishops  who  were  consecrated  after 
the  division  in  the  Nonjuring  camp,  at  which  I  have 
ventured  to  draw  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the 
earlier  and  the  later  Nonjurors.  On  that  principle  he 
would  naturally  come  in  among  the  later,  but  he  really 
belongs  to  the  earlier.  His  life-work  was  over  before  he 
became  a  bishop  ;  he  took  no  part  in  any  consecration, 
and  no  part  in  the  unhappy  controversy  about  the  Usages. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  he  would  have  been  consecrated 
before  had  it  not  been  for  his  imprisonment ;  for  he  was 
the  man  in  whom  Hickes,  the  universally  recognised 
head  of  the  Nonjurors  after  the  death  of  the  deprived 
Fathers,  had  the  greatest  confidence.  Like  most  men 
of  strong  views  he  succeeded  in  impressing  them  upon 
others ;  and  members  of  his  family  will  be  found 
among  the  latest  with  whom  this  volume  deals  when 
the  Nonjuring  party  had  almost  reached  the  vanishing 
point. 

The  reader  will  probably  now  wish  to  know  some- 
thing about  the  real  author  of  the  book  which  brought 
poor  Mr.  Bedford  into  trouble.  George  Harbin  (1665  ?- 
1744)  is  said  to  have  been  a  nephew  of  Bishop  Turner,  of 

1  Or  rather  a  non-complier,  for  there  was  no  need  for  him  to  take  any 
oaths. 


204  THE  NONJURORS 

Ely,  and  also,  oddly  enough,  to  have  been,  in  early  youth, 
a  private  pupil  of  a  very  different  person,  Bishop  Kidder. 
It  is  certain  that  he  graduated  at  Emmanuel  College, 
Cambridge,  in  168(5,  and  then,  having  received  Holy 
Orders,  became  chaplain  to  Bishop  Turner,  whose  example 
he  followed  at  the  Revolution  in  refusing  to  take  the  new 
oaths.  His  connection  with  Turner  probably  introduced 
him  to  Turner's  lifelong  friend,  Ken,  who  wrote  to  Lord 
Weymouth  on  Harbin's  behalf  : 

The  Bp.  of  E.  mentions  to  me  one  Mr-  Harbin,  who  was  his 
owne  Chaplaine  heretofore,  an  excellent  Scholar,  and  as  far  as 
I  could  observe,  of  a  brisk  and  cheerfull  temper.  However, 
I  was  unwilling  to  engage  your  Lordshippe  to  take  him  with- 
out a  previous  trial,  and  I  have  told  ye  Bp.  yl  your  Lordshippe 
should  make  Experiment  of  him,  for  a  quarter  of  a  yeare, 
before  he  rix'd  in  your  family.1 

The  '  experiment '  was  eminently  successful ;  and  Harbin 
was  established  as  chaplain  and  librarian  at  Longleat, 
and  remained  there  certainly  until  the  death  of  the  first 
Lord  Weymouth  in  1714,  if  not  longer. 

There  are  several  letters  of  Ken  to,  and  about,  Harbin, 
and  all  give  us  the  impression  of  his  being  the  quiet, 
learned  student,  not  the  firebrand  to  raise  a  conflagration 
by  spreading  treasonable  matter.  This  impression  is 
confirmed  from  other  sources.  His  name  frequently 
occurs  in  the  correspondence  between  Thomas  Smith  and 
Hearne,  and  generally  in  connection  with  some  literary 
subject,  in  which  both  evidently  regard  him  as  an 
authority.  Baker's  biographer  says  that  Harbin  was 
'  thought  to  have  been  as  well  acquainted  with  the 
Hi  fcory.and  Antiquities  of  England  as  any  man  whatso- 
ever;  '     Anthony  Wood  records  with  great  complacency 

'  Plnmptn,  ii.  107. 

Lift  and    Writings  of  ThomU    lUikcr,  </  .S7.  John's 

Cvllajr,  Cambridge,  p.  28,  m,t. . 


GEOEGE  HAEBIN  205 

(September  25,  1695)  that  he  had  met  at  dinner  '  at  Dr. 
Charlet's  one  Harbin,  a  clergyman  and  a  Cambridge  man 
by  education,  sometime  chaplain  to  Dr.  Turner,  but  a 
Nonjuror  and  in  a  lay  habit,'  who  '  was  desirous  to  see 
him,'  '  complimented  him  much,  told  him  of  severall 
matters  in  his  book ' — evidently  thinking  that  such  a 
man's  approbation  in  literary  matters  was  something 
worth  having ; 1  and  in  the  account  of  his  death  nearly 
fifty  years  later  he  was  described  in  an  obituary  notice 
as  having  been  '  a  Person  of  uncommon  Learning,  ad- 
mirably versed  in  all  Parts  of  our  English  History  and 
true  ancient  Constitution.' 2  Add  to  this  the  negative 
evidence  that  his  name  never  appears  in  connection  with 
Nonjuring  services,  Nonjuring  consecrations,  or  Nonjuring 
internal  disputes,  and  it  will  be  admitted  that  Harbin's 
role  was  that  of  the  student,  not  of  the  agitator ;  and  that 
it  was  at  least  as  much  on  historical  as  on  political  grounds 
that  he  wrote  the  work  which  made  so  great  a  sensation. 
Indeed,  it  was  not  the  first  work  he  wrote  on  the  subject. 
Three  years  before  (1710)  he  published  'The  English 
Constitution  fully  stated,  with  some  Animadversions  on 
Mr.  Higden's  Mistakes  about  it.  In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.' 
Like  many  other  Nonjurors  he  ended  his  days  in  London, 
for  we  learn  from  the  notice  quoted  above  that  « he  died 
in  a  very  advanced  age  at  his  house  in  King  Street,  Soho,' 
on  September  20,  1744.  Had  he  come  more  to  the  front 
he  would  have  been  a  link  between  the  earlier  and  the 
later  Nonjurors;  but,  as  it  is,  he  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  earlier,  for  his  prominence  was  exclusively  in  the 
first,  not  in  the  last  part  of  his  life.  The  name  of  George 
Harbin  suggests  that  of  another  and  much  older  Cam- 

1  Wood's  Life  and  Times  (Oxf.  Hist.  Soc),  iii.  490. 

2  London  Evening  Post,  for  September  20,  1744,  quoted  in  Notes  and 
Queries  (8th  Series),  vol.  i.,  March  12,  1892,  p.  214. 


206  THE  NONJURORS 

bridge  man,  Francis  Brokesby,  who  was  at  Shottesbrooke 
what  Harbin  was  at  Longleat. 

Francis  Brokesby  (1637-1714)  was  a  native  of  Lei- 
cestershire. He  was  a  graduate  and  a  fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge,  and  in  1670  became  rector  of 
Rowley,  near  Hull.  There  he  married  and  held  the 
living  until  1690,  when  he  was  deprived  for  refusing  the 
oaths.  He  had  a  high  reputation  for  learning  and  piety, 
but  would  probably  have  passed  into  oblivion  had  he  not 
become  associated  with  the  Shottesbrooke  group.  In  1706 
he  succeeded  Mr.  Gilbert  as  chaplain  to  Mr.  Cherry  and 
Mr.  Dodwell,  and  for  five  or  six  years  was  an  honoured 
inmate  of  Shottesbrooke  Park.  He  became  the  con- 
fidential friend  of  Dodwell,  Cherry,  Hearne,  and  the 
guests  at  Shottesbrooke,  such  as  Robert  Nelson,  whom 
he  helped  in  his  work  on  the  '  Festivals  and  Fasts  '  ;  his 
name  frequently  occurs  in  Mr.  Secretan's  ■  Life  of 
Nelson,'  and  in  '  Hearne's  '  Collections,'  and  it  is  quite 
clear  from  these  and  other  sources  that  he  was  no  servile 
dependent,  but  on  terms  of  perfect  equality  with  his 
benefactors.  From  his  correspondence  with  Hearne  we 
gather  that  he  was  a  man  of  wide  and  varied  tastes  and 
accomplishments ;  Hearne  consults  him  on  all  sorts  of 
subjects,  literary  and  antiquarian,  and  always  receives  his 
advice  and  information  with  the  greatest  respect  until  he 
published  his  'Life  of  Dodwell,'  which  Hearne  regards, 
with  justice,  as  ;i  very  inadequate  performance.  Brokesby 
belonged  to  the  most  moderate  section  of  the  Nonjurors, 
yearned  for  their  return  to  the  National  Church,  and 
heartily  joined  the  movement  <>f  Cherry,  Dodwell,  and 
d  in  17K),  which  was  the  first  Btep  in  the  direction 
■  ■I"  putting  a  stop  to  the  Nonjuring  separation.  There 
is  an  nit-  re  ting  MS.  Letter  in  St.  John's  College  Library 
from  Brok<  hy  i"  Wag  taffe,  from  which  it  appears  that 


P.   BBOKESBY— S.  GEASCOME  207 

Wagstaffe  had  asked  Brokesby  to  administer  the  Holy 
Communion  to  him,  not  knowing  that  he  had  returned 
to  the  National  Church ;  Brokesby  informs  him  that  he 
had  done  so,  but  is  quite  ready,  '  if  you  are  pleased  to 
accept  of  me  as  here  represented  ' ;  but  it  is  added  in  the 
MS. :  '  KB.  Upon  this  letter  Mr.  Wagstaffe  withdrew 
his  request,  and  died  without  the  Sacrament.'  The  letter 
is  dated  '  Hinckley,  August  29,  1712,'  and  YVagstaffe's 
reply,  '  October  17,  1712.'  Brokesby  died  at  Hinckley 
two  years  later. 

We  come  next  to  two  or  three  Cambridge  Nonjurors 
of  a  different  type. 

Samuel  Grasco?ne,  or  Grascomb  (1641-1709  circa),  was 
born  and  educated  at  Coventry  until  his  admission  as 
a  sizar,  in  1661,  at  Magdalene  College,  Cambridge,  where 
he  graduated  in  1666.  In  1680  he  was  instituted  to  the 
rectory  of  Stourmouth,  in  Kent,  which  he  held  until 
1690,  when  he  was  deprived  for  refusing  to  take  the 
oaths.  He  cast  in  his  lot,  heart  and  soul,  with  the  Non- 
jurors, and  acted  as  officiating  minister  at  one  of  the 
most  noted  of  their  oratories,  that  in  Scroop  Court, 
Holborn,  just  opposite  to  St.  Andrew's  Church,  where 
Hickes  and  Gandy  afterwards  officiated.  Whatever  else 
Grascome  lacked  he  certainly  did  not  lack  courage — nor, 
it  may  be  added,  brains.  The  ablest  and  most  formidable 
opponent  of  the  Nonjurors  was  perhaps  Edward  Stil- 
lingfleet.  William  Sherlock  may  have  equalled  him  in 
point  of  ability,  but  then  Stillingfleet  had  the  advan- 
tage over  Sherlock  in  not  being  weighted  with  the  un- 
pleasant consciousness  of  having  once  been  on  the  other 
side,  and  of  having  turned  right  about  face.  At  any 
rate,  one  of  the  most  telling,  as  it  was  one  of  the  earliest, 
works  in  favour  of  taking  the  oaths  and  complying  with 
the  new  order,  was  Sfcillingfleet's  pamphlet  (it  fills  only 


203  THE  NONJURORS 

forty-two  pages),  '  A  Discourse  concerning  the  Unreason- 
ableness of  a  New  Separation,  on  account  of  the  Oaths, 
with  an  Answer  to  the  History  of  Passive  Obedience  as 
it  relates  to  them.'  The  '  History  of  Passive  Obedience  ' 
was  written  by  Collier,  who  was  well  able  to  take  care  of 
himself ;  but,  as  Stillingfleet  did  not  confine  himself  to 
Collier's  subject,  there  was  room  for  another  writer,  and 
indeed  the  critical  circumstances  of  the  time  required  it. 
Stillingfleet's  pamphlet  is  dated  '  October  15,  1689  ' — 
that  is,  some  time  before  the  actual  separation  had  taken 
place,  and  the  writer  evidently  anticipates  that  it  might 
still  be  avoided.  But  that  would  be  fatal  to  Grascome's 
position,  so  he  wrote  at  once  a  '  Brief  Answer,'  &c.  Then 
Dr.  Williams,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Chichester,  rushed 
into  the  fray,  publishing  in  1691  'A  Vindication  of 
[Stillingfleet's]  Discourse,'  and  Grascome  rejoined  the 
same  year  in  ■  A  Reply  to  a  Vindication,'  &c.  Williams 
was  an  experienced  and  adroit  controversialist ;  so  Gras- 
come had  two  strong  opponents  on  his  hands.  He  writes 
fiercely,  but  considering  that  he  had  sacrificed  everything 
for  conscience'  sake,  while  his  opponent  was  skipping  on 
from  one  preferment  to  another,  there  was  some  little 
excuse  for  his  indignation  at  Williams's  suggestion  that 
though  the  Nonjurors  could  not  take  the  oath,  they 
should  not  make  a  separation,  but  continue  in  communion 
with  the  National  Church. 

When  [replies  Grascome]  you  joyn  with  those  who  make 
this  unjust  Deprivation,  when  you  take  our  Churches,  our 
Hooks,  our  Livelihoods,  and  suffer  us  not  to  exercise  our 
Ministry,  where  you  have  the  Profit  of  it,  unless  we  will  do  \i 
to  tin:  dissatisfaction  of  our  Consciences.  Do  you  complain 
that  we  do  not  maintain  communion  with  you?  If  we  were 
in  fault   in  the  case,  yet   Modesty  (if  any  he  left  you),  and  the 

ill  usage  we  have  from  your  party,  might  make  you  hold  your 
p,  it'.1. 


SAMUEL  GEASCOME  209 

Grascome  is  a  typical  representative  of  the  extreme  sec- 
tion of  the  Nonjurors,  and  even  in  that  early  stage  of  the 
dispute  had  not  only  drawn  the  sword,  but  thrown  away 
the  scabbard.     He  declares  distinctly 

that  whosoever  shall  be  put  into  the  place  of  the  deprived 
Bishops  are  not  to  be  esteemed  Bishops,  nor  ought  either 
Clergy  or  people  to  regard  them,  but  to  adhere  firmly  to  their 
former  true  Bishops  ;  that  whosoever  shall  ordain  such,  or 
endeavour  to  place  them  there,  make  themselves  criminals,  and 
liable  to  ecclesiastical  censure,  and  that  they  and  all  their 
adherents  are  schismatics  [p.  24]. 

He  did  not  tone  down  his  sentiments  as  years  went  on, 
for  in  1693  he  published  a  work  on  'The  Constitutions  and 
Canons  Ecclesiastical,'  in  which  he  contends  that  'all  who 
either  revolt  from  or  deny  the  Supremacy  or  Independency 
of  their  Lawful  Sovereign,  and  transfer  their  Allegiance 
to  any  Foreign  or  Usurped  Power  are  ipso  facto  excom- 
municated by  the  Second  Canon.'  John  Kettlewell  wrote 
almost  simultaneously  on  a  similar  subject ;  and  Kettle- 
well's  biographer,  Francis  Lee,  contrasts  the  two  books, 
and  says :  '  By  the  conclusions  of  Grascome  on  the  2n'' 
Canon,  I  do  not  find  yet  that  any  one  was  brought  over 
to  the  Nonjurors  by  the  terrors  of  ipso  facto  excommuni- 
cation. The  milder  and  softer  method  of  Kettlewell 
succeeded  far  better.'1  In  a  work  entitled  '  Solomon  and 
Abiathar,'  which  appeared  a  little  earlier  (1692),  the 
anonymous  writer  (probably  Samuel  Hill,  Archdeacon  of 
"Wells,  a  High  Churchman)  suggests  that  the  Nonjurors 
might  join  in  the  '  immoral  prayers  '  because  James  and 
"William  were  not  enemies.  Grascome  replied  in  '  Two 
Letters  written  to  the  Author  of  .  .  .  Solomon  and  Abia- 
thar, &c.,'  intimating  that  King  James  may  yet  claim 
his  rights ;  '  and,'  he  adds,  '  I  am  apt  to  think  that  your 

1  Compleat  Works  of  John  Kettlewell,  with  Life  prefixed,  i.  133. 

P 


210  THE   NONJURORS 

little  ambitious  Dutch  saviour  would  think  no  man  in  the 
world  so  much  his  enemy  as  he  that  demands  three  king- 
doms from  him  '  (p.  133).  Grascome  published  his  pam- 
phlets either  anonymously  or  simply  under  the  initials 
'  S.  G.' ;  otherwise  he  would  probably  have  come  into 
trouble  before,  but  in  1696  he  escaped  no  longer.  In  that 
year  the  people  were  violently  excited  on  the  currency 
question,  almost  to  the  point  of  rebellion  ;  and  Grascome 
fomented  the  popular  excitement  by  writing  a  pamphlet 
entitled  '  An  Account  of  the  Proceedings  in  the  House  of 
Commons  in  relation  to  the  Recovering  of  the  Clipt 
Money  and  Falling  the  Price  of  Guineas.'  The  House 
voted  that  the  pamphlet  was  'false,  scandalous,  and 
seditious,  and  destructive  of  the  freedom  and  liberties  of 
Parliament,'  ordered  it  to  be  burned  by  the  common 
hangman,  and  petitioned  the  King  to  offer  a  reward  for 
the  discovery  of  the  author.1  Grascome  by  a  sort  of  acci- 
dent escaped  prosecution  ;  but  he  was  evidently  regarded 
as  a  '  suspect  person,'  and  was  obliged  to  lie  low.  "We 
hear  nothing  more  of  him  except  through  his  publica- 
tions, which  were  numerous.  The  last  of  them  was  '  An 
Answer  to  some  Queries  sent  by  a  Roman  Catholic  to  a 
Divine  of  the  Church,'  which  Hickes  published  in  his 
'  Second  Collection  of  Controversial  Tracts,'  1710,  having 
found  it,  he  says,  in  Grascome's  own  handwriting  among 
his  other  papers  after  his  death.  This  fixes  approxi- 
mately the  date  of  Grascome's  death.  It  must  have 
been  before  1710,  but  presumably  only  a  little  before ; 
for  he  was  certainly  living  in  1707,  in  which  year  he 
wrote  his  last  work,  with  the  suggestive  title  of  '  Schism 
Triumphant,  or  a  Rejoinder  to  a  Reply,'  &c.    His  oppo- 

1  Bm  KrttoLa  on  'Gnuoome,  Samuel,1  in  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography;  and  Nuoiastia  Luttrel]  'ationof  State  Affairs, 4to., 

pp.  1  VI  and  BM. 


MATTHIAS  EABBEEY  211 

nent  was  the  aged  Francis  Tallents,  one  of  the  Noncon- 
formist ministers  who  had  been  ejected  at  the  Restoration, 
and  who  had  written  in  1705  '  A  Short  History  of 
Schism,'  which  Grascome  answered. 

Matthias  Earbery  (1690-1740)  was  another  Non- 
juror of  the  combative  type.  He  was  the  son  of  a  clergy- 
man at  Hoveton,  in  Norfolk,  under  whom  he  was  educated 
until  his  admission  as  a  sizar  at  St.  John's  College, 
Cambridge.  He  was  in  his  early  manhood  a  friend  of 
Thomas  Brett,  the  elder,  and  probably  his  neighbour  in 
Kent ;  for  he  writes  to  Brett,  in  1720,  reminding  him  of 
the  time  '  when  '  (he  says)  '  you  was  a  formal  Jurant  and 
held  a  living  in  Roniney  Marsh,'  and '  when  you  invited  me 
over  (I  cannot  say  disputed  me)  into  the  Nonjurant  Church, 
where  your  Learnedship  assured  me  onty  salvation  was 
to  be  had ; ' 1  and  in  the  same  year  he  writes  to  another 
opponent  on  the  same  subject  (the  Usages) :  '  If  I  had 
not  been  engaged  in  a  correspondence  with  Dr.  Brett, 
who  claimed  the  respect  of  an  old  friend,  I  had  sent  you 
a  few  lines  much  sooner.' 2  He  was  curate  of  Aylesford 
in  the  same  county,  but  in  a  different  part  of  it  from 
Brett's  home,  and  then  became  incumbent  of  Neatishead 
in  his  native  county.  It  would  probably  be  at  the  time 
of  the  enforcement  of  the  Abjuration  Oath  after  the 
Rebellion  of  1715  that  he,  like  Brett,  became  a  formal 
Nonjuror.  He  certainly  was  one  in  1717,  for  we  find  in 
the  Rawlinson  MSS.  among  the  Nonjuring  ordinations  : 
*  1717,  June  4,  Robert  Islip,  ordained  Deacon  in  Mr. 
Earbury's  Chapel  in  Bedford  Court,  Holbourn  by  Mr. 
Gandy,'  and  '  1717,  June  13,  Robert  Nixon  and  Robert 
Islip  were  ordained  Preists  by  Mr.  Gandy,  and  Mr.  John 

1  Reflections  upon  Modem  Fanaticism.    In  two  Letters  to  Dr.  Brett,  by 
Matthias  Earbery,  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England. 

2  Letter  to  the  Author  of  a  late  Pamphlet,  ironically  entitled  Mr.  Leslie'' s 
Defence,  by  M.  E.,  &c. 

v  2 


2i2  THE   NONJURORS 

y  Deacon    in   Mr.  Earbury's  Chapell  in  Bedford 
Court,  Holbourne.'     It  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  this 
that  a  year  later  (1718)  Earbery  still    describes  himself 
in  print  as  'Vicar  of  Neatsheard  in  Norfolk ; '  for  though 
deprived  he  would  still  regard  himself  as  the  canonical 
vicar,  and  would  claim  the  title  on  the  same  principle 
on  which  Thomas  Ken  continued  to  sign  himself  '  Tho. 
B.  and  W.'  long  after  his  deprivation.     His  death  is  thus 
announced  in  '  The  Gentleman's  Magazine  ' :  '  1740,  Oc- 
tober. Kev.  Mr.  Earbery,  a  Nonjuror  and  author  of  several 
political  writings.'     It  is  correct  enough  to  describe  him 
as  a  political  writer ;  but  he  himself  would  certainly  have 
claimed   to   be   a   theological   one,  and  to   have   treated 
politics  only  as  they  affected  theology  ;  the  two  subjects 
were  unhappily  so  mixed  up  in  the  eighteenth  century 
that  it  is  impossible  to  disentangle  the  one  from  the  other. 
Like  Grascome,  he  wrote  on  a  great  variety  of  subjects, 
and  sometimes,  it  must  be  owned,  with  great  bitterness. 
He    deals   his  blows   upon   enemies  from   all    quarters ; 
William  Whiston,  White  Kennett,  Nathanael  Marshall, 
Benjamin    Hoadly,   Thomas    Fleetwood,  and  Burnet  all 
fall  under  his  lash  ;  but  against  none  of  his  enemies  does 
he  use  stronger  language  than  against  his  own  Nonjuring 
friends,   who  differed  from  him  only  in  little  points  of 
ritual,  as  will  appear  in  a  later  chapter.     A  long  list  of 
his    writings  is  given  in  a  note  to  Hearne's   'Reliquiie 
Anglicaia;'    (vol.    ii.    pp.    143-4),  and   the  curious   may 
find  most  of  them  in  the  library  of  the  British   Museum. 
His  answer  to  Bishop  Hoadly  suffers  sadly  by  comparison 
with  Law's    famous  'Three   Letters   to    the   Bishop   of 
Bangor,'     Th<   latter  are  not  only  far  more  powerful  and 
polished,   but  the  writer  docs  not  give  himself  away,  as 
Earbery  does,  by  Ins  violence.     His  most  famous  wm-k  is 
atitl<  '  'The  History  of  the  Clemency  of  our  English 


LAUEENCE  HOWELL  213 

TVIonarchs,  as  compared  with  several  Matters  which  have 
lately  occurred  in  this  Kingdom,  by  M.  E.'  (1717).  The 
'  several  Matters  '  practically  resolve  themselves  into  one, 
viz.  the  hanging  of  the  rebels  after  the  battle  of  Preston ; 
and  severe  reflections  are  passed  on  the  cruelty  of  the 
Government  in  contrast  with  the  clemency  of  English 
monarchs  on  previous  occasions.  This  was  accounted  a 
seditious  libel,  and  Earbery  was  prosecuted  for  it  by  the 
Attorney-General,  fled  the  kingdom,  and  was  outlawed.1 
The  sentence  of  outlawry  was  reversed  in  the  Court  of 
King's  Bench,  December  2,  1725,  and  Earbery  appears  to 
have  returned  to  England  and  died  here. 

There  are  yet  two  other  Cambridge  Nonjurors  who 
brought  themselves  within  the  arm  of  the  law. 

Laurence  Hoioell  (1664  ?-1720)  graduated  from  Jesus 
College,  Cambridge,  in  1684,  and  became  master  of  Epping 
School  and  curate  of  Eastwick,  in  Herts.2  He  refused  the 
Abjuration  Oath  when  it  was  tendered  to  him  in  1708,  cast 
in  his  lot  with  the  Nonjurors,  and  was  '  ordained  Priest  by 
Dr.  Hickes,  October  2,  1712.'  He  is  said  to  have  com- 
posed the  dying  speech  delivered  by  William  Paul  on  the 
scaffold  at  his  execution  in  1716.  But  Thomas  Deacon 
distinctly  told  John  Byrom  that  he  composed  the  speech,3 

1  A  full  account  of  the  matter  from  a  hostile  point  of  view  in  the 
Weekly  Journal,  in  1720,  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Doran  in  his  London  in  the 
Jacobite  Times,  i.  409.  In  the  same  year  (1720)  Earbery  published  from 
France,  A  Vindication  of  the  Clemency  of  our  English  Monarchs,  with 
Reflections  on  the  late  Proceedings  against  the  Author,  which  gives  us  the 
other  side  of  the  question. 

-  In  the  Kettlewell  List  he  is  described  as  '  Curate  of  Estwich,  Suffolk,' 
and,  as  there  is  no  such  place,  it  has  been  doubted  whether  he  was  curate 
anywhere.  It  was  suggested  that  Eastwick  in  Herts  '  may  be  meant.' 
But  there  is  no  '  may  be  '  in  the  matter.  It  is  settled  by  Howell  himself, 
who  in  his  '  Collections  for  Cambridge '  (Kawlinson  MSS.  B  281)  places 
among  the  Nonjurors  in  the  Diocese  of  London,  '  Laur.  Howell,  Cur.  of 
Eastwick.' 

3  Private  Journal  and  Literary  Remains  of  John  Byrom  (Chetham 
Society),  i.  178. 


914  THE  NONJURORS 

and  internal  evidence  bears  him  out,  for  both  the  style 
and  matter  remind  one  much  more  of  Deacon  than  of 
Howell.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  Howell  was  a 
thoroughgoing  Jacobite,  who  spoke,  or  rather  wrote,  his 
mind  quite  freely,  and  suffered  severely  for  so  doing.  His 
general,  and  far  more  important,  writings  will  be  described 
in  a  future  chapter.  All  we  are  now  concerned  with  is  a 
pamphlet  entitled  '  The  Case  of  Schism  in  the  Church  of 
England  fairly  stated,'  which  was  printed  in  1718  for 
private  circulation  only  ;  but  as  a  thousand  copies  were 
found  at  Redmayne  the  printer's,  it  was  presumed  that 
they  were  intended  for  gratuitous  distribution.  He  was 
consequently  tried  at  the  Old  Bailey,  found  guilty,  and 
sentenced  to  be  whipped,  to  stand  in  the  pillory,  to  have 
his  gown  stripped  off,  to  be  fined  5001.,  and  to  be  imprisoned 
for  three  years.  He  did  not  survive  his  imprisonment,  but 
died  in  Newgate  on  July  19,  1720.  The  main  thesis  of 
the  pamphlet  for  which  he  suffered  so  severely  was  only  a 
re-echo  of  what  even  the  gentle  Kettlewell,  to  say  nothing 
of  Leslie  and  others,  had  contended  for  quite  as  strongly, 
viz.  that  the  compilers,  not  the  Nonjurors,  were  entirely 
responsible  for  the  schism,  and  that  the  '  case  of  schism ' 
was  ////fairly  stated  in  any  other  way.  But  his  incidental 
reflections  on  the  established  order  both  in  Church  and 
State  were  such  as  would  be  sure  to  bring  him  into 
trouble. 

The  odious  name  of  separatist  [he  writes]  belongs  to  those 
who  separated  Erom  the  Church's  true  Communion  in  Kiss  and 
Binee  ;  and  not  liO  the  ohast  few  who  for  the  preservation  of  a 
nee  quitted  their  present  support,  and  prospect  of 
farther  promotion.  These  are  Btil]  as  much  friends  of  the 
Ohuroh  and  enemies  o!  schism  as  ever.  But  bytheChuroh 
the;  understand  the  true  old  Church  of  England  [praises  it  . 
•  •  •  This  pure  Virgin-Churoh,  whioh  may  be  said  once  more  to 
be  driven  Into  the  wilderness,  and  ohieflj  (0  horrid!)  bj  hei 


MAETIN  PINCHBECK  215 

unnatural  Kenegade  sons,  the  Nonjurors  say  is  the  Church  to 
which  they  adhere,  and  from  which  the  Complyers  have  separated 
by  departing  from  her  ancient  doctrine  and  practice,  notwith- 
standing they  keep  possession  of  the  loyal  churches  from  which 
the  Nonjurors  were  illegally  rejected.  Thus  began  a  spiritual 
war  which  on  the  Nonjurors'  side  was  purely  defensive,  because 
they  were  driven  from  the  Publick  churches  and  therefore  were 
forc'd  to  set  .up  separate  Oratories  or  Chapels.  .  .  .  They  not 
only  displaced  the  canonical  Metropolitan,  Archbishop  San- 
croft,  but  hoisted  up  a  Subject  Presbyter  into  his  room,  who  had 
sworn  canonical  obedience  to  him,  and,  when  God  has  removed 
him  they  set  up  another  in  his  place  as  Head  of  their  Schism. 
...  In  depriving  their  rightful  King  they  disowned  his 
authority.  .  .  .  Now  the  violation  of  this  2nd  Canon  by  the 
Kevolutionists  transferring  their  allegiance  from  their  lawful 
King  to  an  Usurper  .  .  .  renders  them  ipso  facto  excommuni- 
cates ;  and  the  Nonjurors  are  the  only  true  Church  of  England. 
.  .  .  Who  is  ignorant  of  the  unnatural  treatment  of  King 
James  2  from  his  children  and  subjects  ;  how  his  authority 
was  trampled  on,  despised  and  denied  ?  .  .  .  The  case  is  not 
altered  now — 

with  much  more  to  the  same  effect. 

Another  Cambridge  Nonjuror  who  fell  into  trouble  was 
Martin  Pinchbeck,  who  graduated  from  Emmanuel  College 
in  1664,  and  became  master  of  the  school  at  Butterwick, 
near  Boston.  '  Pinchbeck's  Endowed  School,'  as  it  is  still 
called,  had  only  just  been  founded  (1665)  by  a  namesake, 
whether  a  relation  or  not  I  do  not  know,  Anthony  Pinch- 
beck. Martin  Pinchbeck  also  acted  as  curate  of  the 
neighbouring  village  of  Freiston  (the  living  of  Butter- 
wick was  annexed  to  Freiston  in  1751,  and  the  two  have 
since  then  always  gone  together).  At  the  Eevolution  he 
took  the  oaths  to  William  and  Mary,  '  and  was  bene- 
ficed near  Barton,  in  Lincolnshire,'  possibly  at  Barrow- 
on-Humber.     But 

by  reading  Kettlewell's  and  other  books,  and  comparing  them 
with  the  performances  of  Sherlock.  Burnet,  and  others  on  that 


niG  THE  NONJURORS 

was  so  wrought  on  as  to  retract.  And  in  a  publick 
manner  one  Sunday  before  all  his  parish  he  testified  it,  and  his 
unfeigned  repentance  in  a  Recantation  sermon  on  II.  Sam. 
xxiv.  10,  wherein  he  solemnly  adjured  the  whole  congregation 
to  join  with  him,  for  the  iniquity  by  them  committed,  and  to 
return  to  their  allegiance  to  their  rightful  and  lawful  king,  and 
lie  prayed  in  express  terms  for  King  James,  Queen  Mary  and 
the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  read  in  church  the  Declaration  of 
King  James  of  1693. ' 

By  this  is  meant  the  Declaration  promising  some 
concessions  to  the  '  Compounders,'  that  is,  to  those 
who  stipulated  that  conditions  should  be  made  before 
James  was  restored,  in  contradistinction  to  the  '  Non- 
Compounders,'  who  were  willing  that  he  should  be  restored 
unconditionally.  Pinchbeck's  action  did  not  commend 
itself  to  some  Nonjurors,  who  thought  that  he  ought  first 
to  have  consulted  his  '  rightful  superiors,'  while,  of  course, 
it  brought  him  at  once  into  collision  with  the  ruling 
powers.  He  was  seized,  sent  to  Lincoln,  tried  at  the 
\m  i/.is,  and  condemned  to  stand  in  the  pillory,  pay  a  fine 
of  200Z.,  and  remain  in  prison  until  it  was  paid.  He,  of 
course,  also  lost  his  living.  Much  sympathy  was  shown 
for  him.  Half  the  fine  was  remitted ;  efforts  were  made  to 
persuade  him  to  own  that  he  was  in  fault,  and  the  Roman 
Catholics  offered  to  pay  the  fine  if  he  would  join  them  ; 
but  all  was  in  vain,  and  he  was  reduced,  one  must  own, 
through  his  rashness  rather  than  his  courage,  to  penury. 

WilUa/m  Snatt  (1645-1721)  comes  within  the  category 
of  those  Nonjuring  clergymen  who  were  caught  in  the 
meshes  of  the  law,  though  he  did  not  suffer  so  severely  as 
ili"  '  above-mentioned.  He  was  the  son  of  Edward  Snatt, 
a  master  of  the  Free  School  at  Southover,  Lewes,  the 
school  at  which  the  famous  John  Evelyn  was  educated 

prefixed  to  bii  Compltai    Works  [by  P.  Lee], 
I   160  i 


WILLIAM  SNATT  217 

under  the  elder  Snatt.1  William  Snatt  was  born  at  Lewes, 
and  educated  at  his  father's  school  until  his  matriculation 
at  Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  at  the  close  of  1660.  He 
graduated  B.A.  in  1664,  and  having  in  due  time  received 
Holy  Orders  was  appointed  rector  of  Denton,  Sussex,  in 
1672,  Prebendary  of  Sutton,  in  Chichester  Cathedral,  in 
1674,  rector  of  St.  Thomas's,  Lewes,  and  vicar  of  Seaford 
in  the  same  year,  and  vicar  of  Cuckfield  in  1681. 2  At 
Lewes  he  prosecuted  the  Quakers  for  non-payment  of 
tithes,  and  he  is  mentioned  in  their  archives  with  a  black 
mark  to  his  name.3  He  was  apparently  resident  vicar  of 
Cuckfield  for  eight  years,  and  then  there  is  the  following 
entry  in  one  of  the  parish  books :  '  Wm-  Snatt  was 
inducted  Vicar  here  in  the  latter  end  of  — 81,  and  con- 
tinued till  ye  beginning  of  February  or  thereabout  in  the 
year  1689  when  he  was  deprived  by  Act  of  Parliament 
for  not  taking  the  Oaths  of  Allegiance  and  Supremacy 
to  King  Wm-  &  Queen  Mary.'  Snatt,  of  course,  as  a 
Nonjuror  lost  all  his  preferments,  went  to  London,  and 
became  a  friend  of  at  least  two  of  the  most  eminent  of  the 
Nonjurors  there,  Hilkiah  Bedford  and  Jeremy  Collier. 
But  his  name  does  not  occur  in  connection  with  any 
Nonjuring  ministrations  until  1696,  when  he  joined  with 
Collier  and  Cook  in  publicly  absolving,  with  the  imposition 
of  hands,  Sir  John  Friend  and  Sir  William  Parkyns  on 
the  scaffold  when  they  were  executed  for  their  share  in 
the  Assassination  Plot.4  He  was  tried  for  a  misdemeanour 
before  the  King's  Bench  and  was  committed  to  Newgate, 
but  after  a  short  imprisonment  was  released  on  bail.     He 

1  See  Evelyn's  Diary,  for  April  10,  1696. 

2  I  give  these  dates  from  private  information  kindly  supplied  to  me  by 
the  Rev.  J.  H.  Cooper,  the  present  vicar  of  Cuckfield,  to  whom  I  am  also 
indebted  for  other  details  about  his  predecessor. 

3  See  Sussex  ArcJucological  Collections,  xvi.  82. 
1  See  supra,  p.  124. 


218  THE  NONJURORS 

survived  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  is  said  to  have 
lived  in  London,  and  died  there  in  reduced  circumstances 
on  November  30,  1721,  '  a  true  confessor  of  his  distressed 
and  afflicted  Church.' 

It  is  difficult  to  decide  where  to  draw  the  line  in  sketch- 
ing the  careers  of  the  more  prominent  Nonjurors,  but  there 
are  a  few  more  who  require  at  least  a  passing  notice. 

Let  us  begin  with  one  who  attained  considerable 
eminence  as  an  antiquary  and  historian,  but,  oddly  enough, 
appears  in  no  list  of  Nonjurors,  and  is  rarely,  if  ever, 
mentioned  in  connection  with  them.  And  yet  a  Nonjuror 
he  was,  and  that  of  a  rather  unusual  type. 

Nathana el  Salmon  (1675-1742),  son  of  Thomas  Salmon, 
rector  of  Meppershall,  Beds.,  graduated  at  Corpus  Christi 
College,  Cambridge,  in  1695,  and,  having  received  Holy 
Orders,  became  curate  of  Westmill,  in  Herts.  It  has  been 
seen  that  many  Nonjurors,  who  could  by  no  means  accept 
William  and  Mary  as  their  sovereigns,  did  in  a  sort  of  way 
recognise  Queen  Anne,  at  any  rate  as  a  kind  of  6top-gap 
until  her  brother  was  old  enough  to  take  the  reins.  But 
Salmon  reversed  the  ordinary  process ;  he  felt  no  diffi- 
culty about  taking  the  oath  to  King  William  (Queen  Mary 
\v;is  dead),  but  he  could  not  accept  Queen  Anne.  So 
he  resigned  his  charge  and  practised  medicine,  first  at 
St.  Ives,  in  Hunts,  and  then  at  Bishop  Stortford,  in  Herts. 
In  vain  a  friend  offered  him  a  living  of  some  value  in 
Sultolk  ;  though  he  was  reduced  to  great  poverty  he  could 
not  conscientiously  qualify,  so  he  remained  a  Nonjuror  to 
the  last,  employing  his  Leisure  in  literary  work,  Borne  of 
which  is  of  very  great  value  to  the  student  of  history, 
The  account  of  this  belongs  t<>  a,  later  chapter.  Salmon 
like  so  many  Nonjurors,  settled  in  London,  where  ho  died.1 

Sea  Niohols'i  Littrmrg  A  a  Eighteenth  Cbntury,  ii.  L89  :i ; 

Uhtna  Ccntabrigitnm  ;  and  Gough'i  Brit  Topog.  ii 


ABEDNEGO  SELLEE  219 

Abednego  Seller  (1646  ?-1705)  was  in  his  day  a  man  of 
considerable  mark,  especially  among  the  Nonjurors.  He 
was  a  native  of  Plymouth,  and  became  in  1662  a  servitor 
at  Lincoln  College,  Oxford.  For  some  reason  he  never 
took  his  degree,  but  was  ordained  as  a  literate.1  In  1682 
he  became  rector  of  Combe-in-Teignhead,  Devon,  re- 
signing it  in  1686  when  he  was  instituted  vicar  of  St. 
Charles,  Plymouth.  At  the  Eevolution  he  became  a 
Nonjuror  and  spent  the  rest  of  his  life  in  London.  He 
was  a  well-known  writer  on  Nonjuring,  on  devotional,  and 
on  other  subjects.  Ambrose  Bonwicke  tells  his  father 
that  he  '  should  have  liked  Mr.  Seller's  book  much 
better  '  than  any  other  in  preparing  for  his  Easter  Com- 
munion in  1711.*  He  was  not  reduced  to  poverty  like 
many  Nonjurors,  for  he  left  to  the  Bodleian  a  valuable 
collection  of  books.  He  is  frequently  referred  to  by 
Hearne,  who  calls  him  •  Doctissimus  '  and  '  a  very 
learned  man,'  though  not  so  learned  as  Thomas  Smith, 
and  declares  that  Dr.  W.  Cave  was  much  indebted  to 
him  for  additions  to  his  '  Historia  Literaria.' 3  Dodwell, 
in  his  letter  to  Hawes  about  the  closing  of  the  sepa- 
ration on  the  cession  or  death  of  the  invalidly  deprived 
Fathers,  dwelling  upon  the  intestine  divisions  of  the 
Nonjurors,  says  that  '  Mr.  Seller  takes  a  way  by  himself," 
on  which  Hickes  remarks  :  '  No  way  that  makes  a  breach 
of  communion  with  his  brethren,  or  affects  conscience  as 
to  the  controversy  of  Schism.' 4     Seller  did  not  live  long 

1  There  seems  to  be  some  mystery  in  this  part  of  his  life.  Wood  (Ath. 
Ox.  iv.  564)  says  that  when  he  left  college  he  '  past  through  some  mean 
employment ' ;  Bishop  Smalridge,  according  to  Nichols  (Illastr.  of  Lit.  iii. 
253)  that  '  he  had  the  reputation  of  a  scholar,  though  not  of  a  good  man 
before  he  was  a  Nonjuror.'  A  Life  of  him  by  the  Rev.  J.  Ingle  Dredge  has 
been  printed  for  private  circulation,  but  this  I  have  not  seen. 

2  See  Life  of  Ambrose  Bonwicke,  p.  30. 

3  Hearne's  Collections,  i.  53-4,  ii.  192,  235,  388-9,  iii.  15,  and  passim. 

4  MS.  in  Library  of  St.  John's,  Cambridge. 


220  THE  NONJURORS 

enough  to  come  to  the  parting  of  the  ways,  so  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say  whether  he  would  have  followed  the  example 
of  Dodwell  or  of  Hickes,  but  to  judge  from  the  views 
expressed  in  his  books  he  would  probably  have  been 
on  Jfickes's  side. 

We  pass  on  to  one  who  was  a  friend  and  near  neigh- 
bour of  the  stout  old  Nonjuring  Dean  Granville.  John 
Cock,  a  graduate  of  Christ's  College,  Cambridge,  was 
rector  of  Doddington,  near  Lincoln,  from  1662  to  1665, ! 
when  he  was  presented  to  the  vicarage  of  St.  Oswald's, 
Durham ;  in  1675  he  also  became  lecturer  at  St. 
Nicholas,  Durham,  and  held  both  posts  until  his  ejection 
as  a  Nonjuror  in  1689.  He  was  '  unwearied  in  his  labours 
as  a  parish  priest,'  and  did  not  forget  the  spiritual  needs 
of  his  parishioners  after  he  was  perforce  removed  from 
them ;  for  he  published  a  volume  of  twelve  sermons,  with 
instructions  that  five  hundred  copies  were  to  be  distributed 
among  the  parishioners  of  St.  Oswald  and  St.  Nicholas, 
that  'the  press  might  supply  the  defect  of  the  pulpit 
from  which  he  has  been  removed  above  twenty  years,  and 
as  his  dying  legacy  to  his  parishioners,  that  when  dead 
he  may  yet  preach  to  them.'  The  volume  was  edited, 
with  a  brief  but  very  interesting  memoir  of  the  writer, 
by  his  friend  George  Hickes  in  1710. 

WUliam  Cole,  or  Coles,  was  a  fellow  of  St.  John's 
College,  Oxford,  and  became  vicar  of  Charlbury,  in 
Oxfordshire,  a  valuable  living  in  the  gift  of  that  college, 
which  he  held  until  the  ^Revolution,  when  he  lost  it 
because  he  refused  to  take  the  oaths.  Charlbury  was  a 
country  seat  of  Henry,  second  Earl  of  Clarendon,  who 
D  I  ntiv  in  his  diary:  'August  11  [1689],  Sunday.— 
1    wen!    to    church    at    Charlebmy,   where  a    Btranger 

at  l  inu  Indebted  to  the  present  rector  of  Doddington,  th  ■ 
Ber.  i:.  E.  dole. 


EOBEET  OEME  221 

officiated,  Mr.  Cole  not  having  taken  the  oaths  ' ;  and  the 
biographer  of  Charles  Leslie  informs  us  that  'on  two 
successive  Sundays,  8th  and  15th  of  September,  1689,  he 
[Charles  Leslie]  was  the  preacher  at  the  services  in 
Charlbury  Church,  when  the  rector ' — that  is,  of  course, 
Mr.  Cole,  for  the  deprivation  did  not  take  place  until  five 
months  later — '  was  not  only  present,  but  afterwards 
dined  at  the  same  table.' x  Mr.  Cole  lived  on,  without 
ever  coming  prominently  into  public  life,  until  1735,  that 
is,  for  forty-five  years,  but  it  is  recorded  many  years  later : 
'  His  memory  is  greatly  esteemed  in  the  vicinity.' 2 

Bobert  Orme  (d.  1733)  is  described  by  Nichols  as 
'  a  very  antient  Nonjuring  clergyman  who  possessed  the 
confidence  of  those  of  his  own  persuasion  to  a  great 
degree ' ;  and  for  this  cause  apparently  Nichols  singles 
out  Orme's  among  many  letters  of  sympathy  addressed 
to  William  Bowyer  when  his  printing  office  was  burnt  in 
1712  ; 3  but  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  learn  anything  very 
definite  about  him.  He  was  curate  of  Lewisham,  and 
was  then  instituted  to  the  rectory  of  Wouldham,  in  Kent, 
on  February  25,  1689-90 — that  is,  just  at  the  time  when 
the  controversy  between  Jurors  and  Nonjurors  was  at 
its  acutest  stage.  He  held  this  living  in  1697,4  when, 
repenting  of  his  compliance,  he  threw  it  up,  and  was 
admitted  into  the  Nonjuring  communion  as  'a  Penitent.' 
There  he  evidently  became  a  man  of  some  prominence, 
for  he  officiated  at  one  of  the  most  important  Nonjuring 
oratories  in  London, '  in  the  Parish  of  S.  Botolph  without 
Aldersgate,  commonly  called  Trinity  Chapel,'  being  suc- 

1  Life  and  Writings  of  Charles  Leslie,  by  Bev.  E.  J.  Leslie,  ch.  iv. 
p.  81. 

-  See  Notes  and  Queries,  1868,  January-June,  p.  459. 

3  Nichols's  Literary  Anecdotes  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  i.  52,  note. 

4  I  am  indebted  for  these  particulars  to  the  Eev.  B.  W.  Taylor,  the 
present  rector  of  Wouldham. 


222  THE  NONJURORS 

ceeded  in  it  by  John  Lindsay,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
of  the  later  Nonjurors.  It  is  called  '  Mr.  Orme's  Chapel ' 
in  the  Eawlinson  MSS.  There  is  a  gossiping  story  about 
Orme  which  seems  to  rest  upon  rather  slender  founda- 
tions, but  may  be  inserted  for  what  it  is  worth.  He  is 
said  to  have  visited  a  fanatical  young  Jacobite  named 
James  Sheppard,  who  had  been  convicted  of  treason  in 
1718,  in  Newgate,  and  to  have  had  more  than  one  un- 
seemly scuffle  with  the  ordinary,  Paul  Lorraine,  for  the 
spiritual  possession  of  the  prisoner,  to  have  composed 
Sheppard's  '  last  dying  speech,'  and  to  have  given  him 
absolution  on  the  scaffold,  for  which  offences  he  was 
imprisoned  in  Newgate  himself;  and  the  Whig  papers 
said,  '  Mr.  Orme's  friends  are  very  apprehensive  that  he 
will  shortly  have  to  prepare  a  speech  for  himself.'  '  The 
apprehensions  were  unnecessary.  Mr.  Orme  survived  for 
fifteen  years,  and  died  in  his  bed,  not  on  the  scaffold. 
He  was  buried  in  the  churchyard  of  his  old  parish, 
Lewisham.  The  following  notice  of  his  death  appeared 
in  The  Daihj  Post-Boij  for  January  15,  1732[3]  : 

Yesterday  morning  died,  in  a  very  advanced  age,  at  his 
house  in  Jewin  Street  near  Aldersgate,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Robert 
Orme,  who  bad  been  a  Nonjuring  Clergyman  ever  since  the 
Revolution.  The  integrity  of  his  life,  and  the  simplicity  of  his 
manners  gained  him  the  esteem  and  respect  of  many  people  of 
different  sentiments. 

Another  Nonjuring  clergyman  was  more  honourably 
oonneoted  with  the  story  of  young  Sheppard,  the  Jacobite 
COD  pirator. 

John  Leake  (d.  1724)  had  been  lecturer  of  St.  Giles, 
Cripplegate;   and   St.    Michael,  Qneenhithe,    until    the 

1  Baa  i»r.  Doran'i  London  m  Ou  JaoobUt  Tmsa,  i.  BOS  8,  and  J.  n. 

'<'•  "•""'•  "/  th  I  nglond  from  tin-  Revolution  to  tin-  Death 

I 


J.   LEAKE— C.   TEUMBULL  223 

Revolution,  when  he  was  deprived.  Whether  he  was 
the  '  honest  Mr.  John  Leake,  formerly  of  Hart  Hall,' 
with  whom,  among  others,  Hearne  walked  out  from 
Oxford  to  Foxcomb  on  June  10,  1715,  to  celebrate  '  King 
James  IIIrd's  Birthday,' 1  I  cannot  say.  But  he  was 
evidently  in  London  officiating  at  some  small  Nonjuring 
oratory,  or  perhaps  in  his  own  house,  in  1718 ;  for 
Sheppard,  a  coachmaker's  apprentice,  who  had  conceived 
an  enthusiastic  attachment  to  the  Stuarts,  wrote  to  him 
offering  '  to  go  to  Italy,  if  his  expenses  were  paid,  bring 
back  our  King,  and  smite  the  usurper  in  his  palace,'  and 
expressing  a  desire  '  to  receive  the  sacrament  daily  till 
he  had  accomplished  his  purpose  ' — that  is,  in  plain 
words,  until  he  had  assassinated  George  I.  Leake  very 
properly  gave  information  to  the  Government,  who  seized 
Sheppard,  and,  it  is  said,  settled  an  annuity  of  two  hundred 
pounds  on  Leake.2  His  name  appears  in  the  '  Catalogue 
of  Nonjurors  Writers,  from  the  year  1689,'  in  the  MSS. 
in  St.  John's  Library ;  but  what  he  wrote  is  not  men- 
tioned.    He  died  on  November  18,  1724. 

There  were  two  more  Nonjuring  clergymen  of  whom 
one  might  have  expected  to  hear  much,  but  of  whom,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  one  hears  little  or  nothing.  One  was 
Charles  Trumbull  (1646-1724),  who  had  formerly  been 
chaplain  to  Archbishop  Sancroft,  and  administered  the 
last  Viaticum  to  him  at  Fressingfield,  where  he  was 
accidentally  visiting  Sancroft  at  the  time  of  his  death.3 
Trumbull  was  a  man  of  high  family,  the  younger  brother 
of  Sir  William  Trumbull,  a  Secretary  of  State  in  the 
time   of   William   III.     He   was   a   graduate   of    Christ 

1  Reliquice  Hearniancc,  ii.  5. 

2  See  Dr.  Doran's  London  in  the  Jacobite  Times,  i.  306,  and  John 
Heneage  Jesse's  Memoirs  of  the  Court  of  England  from  the  Revolution  in 
1688  to  the  Death  of  George  II.  ii.  304. 

3  See  D'Oyly's  Life  of  Sancroft,  ii.  64. 


224  THE  NONJURORS 

Church,  Oxford  (16G7),  but  took  the  degree  of  D.C.L. 
from  All  Souls'  in  1677  ;  so  he  was  probably  a  fellow 
there.  In  1679  he  became  rector  of  Hadleigh,  in  Suffolk, 
and  of  Stisted,  in  Essex,  both  being  in  the  gift  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  In  the  «  Calendar  of  State 
Papers '  we  find,  in  November  1G90,  a  '  Warrant  for  the 
presentation  of  Zach.  Fisk  to  the  rectory  of  Hadley  in 
Suffolk,  void  by  the  deprivation  of  Charles  Trumbull, 
D.D.,'  and  on  '  Jan.  1  Warrant  for  the  presentation  of 
Wm#  Shelton  to  the  rectory  of  Stisted  in  Essex,  void  by 
the  deprivation  of  C.  Trumbull,  for  not  having  taken  the 
oaths  according  to  the  Act  of  Parliament ' ; '  and  then 
the  name  of  Charles  Trumbull  entirely  disappears  from 
history  until  his  death  is  recorded  in  the  '  Historical 
Kegister '  on  January  3,  1724.  When  he  became  a  Non- 
juror he  sacrificed  two  good  pieces  of  preferment,  and 
probably,  from  his  family  connections,  the  prospect  of 
rising  much  higher.  But  he  was  apparently  content  to 
suffer  quite  patiently,  without  making  any  agitation,  for 
five-and-thirty  years. 

The  other  clergyman  is  Nathanael  Bisbie  (1635-95), 
who  certainly  held  a  leading  position  in  the  diocese  of 
Norwich  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  ; 2  and  his  ante- 
cedents justified  such  a  position.  He  was  educated  at 
Westminster  and  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  where  he  was 
:i  Student,  and  as  far  back  as  1660  was  presented  to  the 
rectory  of  Long  Melford,  in  Suffolk.  This  he  held  until 
the  Revolution,  '  at  which  time,'  as  he  himself  expressed 
it,  '  the  foresaid  Nath.  Bisbie,  being  then  in  the  55th 
of  his  age,  and  30th  year  of  his  incumbency  by 
vertue  of  an  unrighteous  ad  of  a  factious  and  rebellions 

1  Calmdar  of  Bt  'Domestic  Scries'  (Hardy)  William  and 

Mary,  May,  L690  Ootobar,  L691,  p.  218. 

</•/./,  p.    10. 


NATHANAEL  BISBIE  225 

convention,  was  deprived  of  the  rectory  of  Long  Melford 
for  not  withgoing  his  faith  and  sworn  allegiance  to  King 
James  the  Second  and  transferring  it  to  William,  Prince 
of  Orange.'  1  It  may  be  gathered  from  this  passage  that 
Bisbie  could  write  sharply ;  and  so  he  could,  and  act 
sharply  too.  He  is  said  to  have  had  a  quarrel  with  Sir 
Eobert  Cordell,  his  patron,  about  tithes  and  the  right  of 
sitting  in  the  chancel ;  and  he  wrote  several  sermons  and 
other  treatises,  which  are  severe  enough,  against  dis- 
senters. But  all  this  was  before  his  deprivation.  During 
the  five  or  six  years  that  he  lived  after'  that  catastrophe 
he  wrote  nothing  except,  perhaps,  one  very  acute  and 
learned  little  work,  entitled  '  Unity  of  Priesthood  neces- 
sary to  Unity  of  Communion  in  a  Church  '  (1692).  It 
was  called  forth  by  the  appointment  of  a  new  primate 
and  new  bishops  in  place  of  the  '  deprived  Fathers.' 
This,  it  will  be  remembered,  was,  in  Hickes's  opinion, 
the  real  beginning  of  the  schism;  but  the  work  was 
published  anonymously,  and  it  cannot  be  said  for  an 
absolute  certainty  that  Bisbie  was  the  writer  ;  and  apart 
from  this  he  appears  to  have  been  absolutely  quiet.  He 
is  highly  spoken  of  by  both  Wood  and  Hearne.  The 
former  says  that  in  his  early  days  '  he  was  esteemed  an 
excellent  preacher  and  a  zealous  person  for  the  Church 
of  England.'     The  latter  : 

Nov.  5,  1707 :  Nath.  Bisbie,  Dr  of  Div.  and  Student  of  Xfc 
Church.  This  Loyal,  Eeligious  Divine  had  a  Parsonage  of 
about  300  lbs.  per  an.,  which  he  relinquished  after  ye  Bevolution 
in  the  time  of  King  William,  commonly  call'd  old  Glorious,  and 
could  never  be  brought  to  side  wth  ye  times  or  take  ye  oaths, 
tho'  he  had  as  good  motive  to  it  as  any  man,  having  a  large 
family.     He  died  very  poor.2 

His  death  took  place  May  14,   1695,  at  Long  Melford, 

1  Athence  Oxonienses,  iv.  640.  2  Collections,  ii.  68. 

Q 


226  THE  NONJURORS 

under  the  shadow  of  the  church  where  he  had  ministered 
for  nearly  forty  years,  of  which  he  wrote  a  long  and 
interesting  account,  thereby  rendering  good  service  to 
topographers.  The  fact  that  'he  died  very  poor'  is 
borne  out  by  an  interesting  MS.  document  in  St.  John's 
College  Library :  '  The  Names  of  the  suspended  and 
deprived  Clergie  Nonswearers  in  the  Diocese  of  Norwich,' 
to  which  is  added  in  Thomas  Baker's  own  handwriting 
'This  was  drawn  up  in  order  to  their  Belief.'  An 
evidently  honest  investigation  had  been  made  as  to  their 
circumstances,  for  some  are  described  as  '  not  poor,'  '  not 
very  poor,'  '  well  to  passe,'  '  a  single  man,'  but  '  Doct. 
Bishby  [sic],  Rector  of  Melford,  has  a  wife  and  children, 
and  is  poor.' 

One  more  clergyman  must  be  noticed,  not  for  any 
distinction  which  he  achieved,  but  for  the  extraordinary 
length  of  his  incumbency.  John  Watson  was  rector  of 
Saltfleetby  St.  Clement's,  in  Lincolnshire,  for  more  than 
seventy  years  !  It  seems  incredible,  but  Bishop  Jackson, 
of  Lincoln,  a  cautious  man,  said  he  believed  the  tradition 
was  true,  and  could  be  proved  by  documentary  evidence. 
He  is  said  to  have  been  ejected  from  his  benefice  in  the 
time  of  the  Commonwealth,  when  one  of  Cromwell's 
drummers  was  put  in  his  place.  At  the  Restoration  he 
was  reinstated,  and  was  again  ejected  at  the  Revolution 
as  a  Nonjuror,  when  he  must  have  been  considerably  over 
ninety  years  of  age.  He  lived  on  until  1G93  in  the  parish 
of  which  he  had  so  long  been  rector.1 

It  may  be  objected  that,  after  all,  very  little  appears 
to  be  known  about  these  last  eight  Nonjuring  clergymen. 
Exactly  so;  that  is  just  the  point.  Enough  is  known 
about    most   of   them   to   show    that,   though    they   had 

1   I    urn    Indebted   for  this    information    to  my  old  Mend  khi    K.v.   \\ . 
r.ctor  of  the  neighbour)  i|  pari  hoi  Stltfleetbj  St  Peter1  , 


QUIET  SUFFERERS  227 

abilities,  or  social  position,  or  other  qualities  enough  to 
enable  them  to  make  a  noise  in  the  world,  they  preferred 
to  submit  quietly  to  their  fate  without  murmuring ;  their 
very  silence  is  eloquent.  The  list  might  be  swelled, 
but  as  other  clergy  will  come  before  us  in  connection  with 
the  later  Nonjurors,  enough  space  has  perhaps  been  given 
to  the  clerical  element  in  the  party. 


Q  2 


THE   NONJURORS 


CHAPTEE    V 

THE   NONJURING   LAITY 

It  is  obvious  that  the  laity  were  in  a  somewhat  different 
position  from  the  clergy  in  respect  to  the  oaths.  If  they 
held  no  post  which  necessitated  swearing  allegiance  to  the 
Government,  their  hands  were  not  forced  ;  they  could 
play  the  game  as  they  chose.  Unless  they  were  active 
Jacobites  they  were  not  bound  even  by  a  moral  obligation 
to  involve  themselves  in  any  trouble  about  the  subject ; 
they  were  at  liberty  to  hold  what  opinions  they  pleased 
without  being  molested.  And  I  believe  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  a  great  number  of  laymen  were  in  full  sympathy 
with  the  Nonjurors  without  becoming  Nonjurors  them- 
selves. It  was  sufficient  if  they  showed  personal  kindness, 
as  many  of  them  did  most  nobly,  to  those  clerical  sufferers 
for  conscience'  sake  who  sorely  needed  such  kindness. 

Again,  not  being  preachers,  they  had  not  committed 
themselves  publicly,  as  so  many  of  the  clergy  had  done, 
to  opinions  about  passive  obedience,  non-resistance,  and 
Divine  right,  the  only  logical  conclusion  of  which  was  the 
rejection  of  the  Involution  Settlement  and  the  Hanoverian 
Succession. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  wonder  is,  not  that  there 

Illy  '  a  small  sprinklingof  laity'  (as  the  phrase  wen:) 

who  openly   sided   with    the    Nonjuring    clergy,    but    that 

there  were  m.  many  who  did;  '    that   this  chapter,  in  fact, 

1  A  writer  in  The  dmhirt  Sheaf  (No.  61,  p.  57)  says  boldly  that  ■  about 
our  bondrad  olergr  and  a  much  larger  number  of  laymtm  ratuaad  on  oon- 


THE  SHOTTESBBOOKE  GEOUP  229 

is  not  all  but  a  blank,  instead  of  being  a  most  important 
and  fruitful  branch  of  the  subject. 

London,  Oxford,  and  Cambridge  were  the  places  with 
which  the  majority  of  the  Nonjurors  noticed  in  the  last 
chapter  were  chiefly  connected.  The  scene  must  now  be 
shifted  to  the  small  country  village  of  Shottesbrooke,  in 
Berkshire,  for  with  this  village  the  names  of  three  of 
the  most  notable  of  the  Nonjuring  laity — Henry  Dodwell, 
Francis  Cherry,  and  Thomas  Hearne — are  associated ; 
and  Shottesbrooke  was  also  a  pleasant  retreat,  and 
sometimes  a  safe  refuge  for  other  Nonjurors,  both  lay  and 
clerical.1 

Among  the  early  Nonjuring  laity  the  first  place  must 
undoubtedly  be  assigned  to  Henry  Dodwell,  not  because 
he  was  the  highest  in  rank,  for  there  were  many  above 
him,  nor  because  he  was  the  best-known  writer  of  the 
class,  for  there  were  many  better  known  ;  least  of  all 
because  he  had  the  wisest  judgment,  for  he  often  embar- 
rassed his  friends  quite  as  much  as  his  foes  by  his  various 
eccentricities.  But  as  a  scholar  and  a  divine  there  was  no 
layman  who  could  be  for  a  moment  compared  with  him  ; 
and  as  a  leader  he  took  so  prominent  a  position  that  he 
was  called  '  the  great  lay  dictator  '  of  the  whole  party.2 
It  was  probably  Dodwell  as  much  as  any  man  who  directed 
the  policy  of  the  first  Nonjurors  ;  it  was  certainly  Dodwell 
more  than  any  man  who  caused  the  first  return  of  a  set  of 
Nonjurors  to  the  National  Church,  which  was  virtually 
the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  Nonjuring  separation. 


scientious  grounds  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  William  and  Mary.' 
I  do  not  know  on  what  evidence  his  assertion  rests,  but  I  am  not  prepared 
to  dispute  its  correctness. 

1  Perhaps  I  may  be  allowed  to  refer  to  an  article  I  wrote  in  Longman 
Magazine  for  March  1886,  on  •  A  Country  Village  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Eighteenth  Century  '  (Shottesbrooke). 

2  See,  inter  alia,  Life  of  Bishop  Frampton,  p.  203. 


230  THE   NONJURORS 

Henry  Dodwell  (1641-1711)  was  born  at  Dublin,  but 
both  his  parents  were  of  English  extraction,  and  returned 
to  England  when  their  son  was  only  seven  years  old.  In 
England  he  received  his  early  education,  first  at  the  Free 
School  at  York,  and  then  under  his  uncle,  Henry  Dod- 
well, incumbent  of  Hemley  and  Newbourne  in  Suffolk  ; 
so  we  cannot,  as  otherwise  we  might  be  tempted  to  do, 
set  down  his  eccentricities  to  his  Irish  blood  or  training. 
He  returned,  however,  to  Ireland  to  complete  his  educa- 
tion ;  in  1656  he  was  admitted  at  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
and  was  elected  in  due  course,  first  scholar  and  then 
fellow ;  but  he  soon  resigned  his  fellowship  through 
that  sensitiveness  of  conscience  which  was  a  marked 
feature  in  his  character.  And  here  it  may  be  noted  that 
when  Dodwell's  eccentricities  are  spoken  of,  it  always 
means  eccentricities  of  speculation,  not  of  conduct ;  his 
conduct  was  only  so  far  eccentric  as  it  was  abnormally 
unselfish,  pure,  and  high-minded.  He  lost  his  fellow- 
ship, e.g.,  because  he  had  conscientious  objections  to  take 
Holy  Orders,  the  College  Statutes  requiring  that  every 
fellow  who  was  an  M.A.  of  three  years'  standing  should 
be  ordained  ;  but  the  '  conscientious  objections  '  were  the 
wry  reverse  of  those  which  now  unhappily  prevent  too 
many  men  of  high  attainments  and  abilities  from  enter- 
ing the  sacred  ministry.  It  was  not  because  he  had 
doubts,  but  because,  he  had  so  intense  a  belief  in  all  tin- 
doctrines  of  Christianity  that  he  shrunk  from  ordination. 
1 1<  did  not  think  himself  good  enough  for  it ;  and,  more- 
over, as  the  great  object  of  his  life  was  to  recommend  the 
religion  in  which  he  believed  heart  and  soul,  he  thought 
he  could  do  this  more  effectually  if  he  remained  a  layman. 
tor  then  he  could  not  be  suspected  of  interested  motives, 
or  o!  holding  a  brief  for  the  Faith.  Bishop  Jeremj 
Taylor  offered  bo  use  his  influence  bo  obtain  a  dispensa- 


HENEY  DODWELL  231 

tion  for  him  to  hold  his  fellowship  as  a  layman  ;  but  he 
declined  the  offer  as  a  bad  precedent  for  the  college. 
We  then  lose  sight  of  him  for  awhile,  but  find  him  in 
1674  in  London,  '  as  being  a  place  where  was  a  variety  of 
learned  persons,  and  which  afforded  him  opportunity  of 
meeting  with  books  both  of  ancient  and  modern  authors.' 1 
There  he  made  acquaintance  with  men  of  literary  mark, 
such  as  Bishop  Pearson,  of  Chester,  and  Bishop  Lloyd,  of 
St.  Asaph,  and  in  1688  he  was  elected  without  solicitation 
Camdenian  Prselector  (often,  but  incorrectly,  called  Pro- 
fessor) of  Ancient  History  at  Oxford.  At  the  Ke  volution 
he  at  once  resigned  the  post  because  he  could  not  take 
the  new  oaths.  It  was  in  vain  represented  to  him  by 
learned  counsel  that  '  the  Act  seemed  not  to  reach  his 
case,  in  that  he  was  Prselector,  not  Professor.'  He  must 
have  been  strongly  tempted  to  take  advantage  of  the 
chance,  for  he  was  eminently  qualified  for  the  post 
he  held,  and  had  already  delivered  some  valuable  and 
highly  appreciated  'preelections';  and  he  had  certainly 
no  reason  to  be  grateful  to  James  II.,  for  through  that 
King's  bigoted  policy  he  had  lost  all  his  little  propertjr 
in  Ireland,  and  had  actually  been  included  in  the  Act  of 
Attainder  as  a  Protestant.  At  Oxford,  above  all  places, 
he  was  thoroughly  in  his  element,  and  he  remained  there 
without  office  for  some  little  time,  and  then  retired  to  the 
beautiful  little  village  of  Cookham,  on  the  Thames.  He 
used  to  walk  daily  into  the  neighbouring  town  of  Maiden- 
head to  hear  the  news  and  learn  what  books  were  newly 
published,  and  there  he  used  to  meet  Francis  Cherry,  who 
came  in  for  the  same  purpose  from  Shottesbrooke,  a 
village  on  the  other  side  of  Maidenhead.  The  two  men 
naturally  struck  up  a  friendship,  agreeing,  as  they  did, 
both  in  their  theological  and  political  views ;  and  Cherry 

1  Article  on  '  Dodwell,  Henry,'  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 


THE  NONJURORS 

persuaded  Dodwell  to  remove  from  Cookham  to  Shottes- 
brooke,  where  he  fitted  up  a  house  for  him  near  his  own. 
They  maintained  jointly  a  Nonjuring  chaplain  to  minister 
to  their  families ;  first  a  Mr.  Gilbert,  of  St.  John's  Col- 
lege, Oxford,  who  had  been  vicar  of  Medmenham,  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood,  before  the  Revolution  ;  l  and, 
on  his  death,  Mr.  Francis  Brokesby,  already  noticed.2 
They  had  also  a  sort  of  joint  protege  in  Thomas  Hearne ; 
their  kindness  to  whom  will  appear  presently.  Shottes- 
brooke  became  a  little  centre  of  Nonjurors  who  recognised 
Dodwell  as  their  head,  though  they  were  now  and  then 
dismayed  by  his  startling  theories.  But  his  immense 
learning,  his  single-hearted  piety,  and  his  fascinating 
personality  quite  outweighed  his  eccentricities,  and  the 
dictatorial  tendency  which  he  certainly  showed  at  times 
in  public  does  not  appear  to  have  displayed  itself  to  his 
friends  in  private.  On  the  contrary,  both  Hearne  and 
Brokesby,  who  knew  him  very  intimately,  dwell  upon  his 
humility,  Hearne  describing  him  as  '  humble  and  modest 
to  a  fault ' ;  while  Cherry  indignantly  defended  him  from 
the  charge  when  Dr.  Mill  called  him  '  the  proudest  man 
living.' 3  Dodwell  had  a  busy  pen,  and  he  employed  it 
most  sedulously,  both  in  public  and  in  private,  on  the 
great  questions  which  were  agitating  the  Church  ami 
nation  at  the  Revolution.  In  the  interval  between  the 
suspension  and  the  deprivation  of  the  Nonjuring  bishops 
he  published  '  A  Cautionary  Discourse  of  Schism,  with  a 
particular  Regard  to  the  Case  of  the  Bishops  who  are 
Suspended  for  refusing  to  take  the  New  Oath,'  and  to 
this  public  caution  he  added  private  remonstrances.  Ili- 
book  was  written  with  a  design  to  prevent, if  possible,  the 

S' '   EXeai  ai '    I  'olieetioiu,  i.  811. 
,  p.  806  7. 

'   bi<    Ileum.       i  .    .  878. 


HENRY   DODWBLL  233 

filling  up  of  the  sees  of  the  deprived  bishops  ; l  and  with 
the  same  design  he  wrote  to  Tillotson  when  he  was  on 
the  eve  of  accepting  the  primacy  a  severe  letter  of 
remonstrance,  urging  him  not  to  be  '  the  aggressor  in  the 
new  designed  schism,  in  erecting  another  altar  against 
the  hitherto  acknowledged  altar  of  your  deprived  fathers 
and  brethren,' 2  and  concluding  very  characteristically  : 
'  No  more,  but  that  I  am,  till  you  have  formed  your  schism, 
Your  affectionate,  but  suffering,'  &c.  He  also  wrote,  in  very 
spirited  and  rather  dictatorial  language,  to  Dr.  Sherlock 
on  his  tergiversation,  saying,  among  other  things :  '  Your 
practical  Discourse  of  Death  made  us  expect  you  would 
have  been  faithful  to  the  Death,  though  even  the  fear  of 
death  had  been  urg'd  to  drive  you  from  your  constancy.' 3 
He,  moreover,  felt  it  his  mission  to  keep  the  deprived 
Fathers  themselves  up  to  the  mark,  and  therefore  wrote 
two  rather  strong  exhortations  to  Bishop  Ken  and  Bishop 
Frampton  when  he  thought  they  were  wavering.  Against 
the  tone  of  these  exhortations  the  two  good  prelates 
rebelled  a  little,  and  their  biographers  still  more.4  He 
rushed  with  characteristic  courage  into  the  fray  against 
one  of  the  most  powerful  and  effective  of  all  the 
defenders  of  the  Kevolution,  Humphrey  Hody,  who  had 
been  a  resident  at  Oxford  with  him,  and  a  personal  friend ; 
but  personal  friendship  weighed  as  nothing  against  public 
duty  with  Henry  Dodwell.  Hody  had  found  among  the 
Baroccian  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian  a  Greek  treatise,  ascribed 
to  Nicephorus,  which  he  translated  and  published  under 
the  title  of  '  The  Unreasonableness  of  a  Separation  from 

1  Life  of  Kettlewell  (Compleat  Works),  i.  126. 

2  See  Birch's  Life  of  Tillotson,  p.  246. 

3  '  Two  Letters  from   Mr.  Dodw— 1 :    (1)  to  Dr.  Sherl— ck,  (2)  to  Dr. 
illot— n,'  among  the  Rawlinson  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian  Library. 

1  See   Life  of  Frampton,   edited   by  T.  Simpson  Evans,  p.  203,  an 
mptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  41. 


234  THE  NONJURORS 

the  New  Bishops :  or,  a  Treatise  out  of  Ecclesiastical 
History,  showing  that,  although  a  Bishop  was  unjustly 
deprived,  neither  he  nor  the  Church  ever  made  a  Separa- 
tion, if  the  successor  was  not  a  heretick '  (1691).  The 
work  was  ably  answered  in  the  '  Unity  of  the  Christian 
Priesthood,'  probably  by  Dr.  Bisbie,  as  already  noticed  ;  ' 
but  it  was  clearly  a  case  also  to  call  forth  the  Coryphaeus 
of  the  party.  Hody  was  a  foeman  worthy  of  his  steel ; 
Dodwell  was  on  his  own  ground,  on  which  he  was  quite 
unrivalled  by  any  Nonjuror  ;  and  if  the  Nonjurors  really 
had  ecclesiastical  history  against  them  they  might  throw 
up  the  sponge  at  once,  for  that  was  their  strong  point. 
So,  in  answer  to  Hody,  Dodwell  produced  his  exceedingly 
valuable  '  Vindication  of  the  Deprived  Bishops,  &c.'  (1692), 
the  book  which,  in  my  opinion,  was  the  strongest  of  all 
the  works  written  in  defence  of  the  position  of  the  early 
Nonjurors.  Of  course  it  was  no  use  fighting  against  the 
master  of  thirty  legions,  so  it  had  no  effect ;  but  there  it 
remains,  a  worthy  monument  of  the  keenest  and  most 
learned  among  a  singularly  keen  and  learned  little  body 
of  men. 

It  was  not  much  noticed  at  the  time  that  Dodwell's 
'Vindication,  &c.'  and  his  subsequent  'Defence'  of  it 
brought  him  slightly  into  collision,  on  the  other  side,  with 
Kettlewell.  Dodwell  admitted  that  'if  there  had  been 
a  Synodical  Deprivation  of  the  Orthodox  and  Faithful 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  however  in  itself  unjust,  yet  the 
Clergy  and  Laity  ought  to  have  complied  with  the 
)•  obligation  of  owning  the  Episcopal  College  than 
with  the  less  obligation  <>f  Owning  any  particular  bishop.' 
Kettlewell  dissented  from  tins  view  on  the  ground  that 
'Truth  and  Righteousness  and  Eoly  Unspotted  Worship 

in  the   Church'   were   more  important   than   even  Church 
'  Sir  ■  upra,  i>.  886. 


HENKY  DODWELL  235 

unity.  The  Church  was  made  for  religion,  not  religion 
for  the  Church.1  Kettle  well  was  called  to  his  rest  long 
before  the  division;  but  his  attitude  on  this  occasion, 
combined  with  other  passages  in  his  works,  makes  it  to 
my  mind  extremely  doubtful  whether,  if  he  had  been 
spared  to  see  it,  he  would  have  joined  the  Dodwell,  and 
not  the  Hickes  party.  This  almost  unnoticed  disagree- 
ment was  in  reality  the  first  little  rift  in  the  lute  which 
afterwards  widened  into  an  open  breach.  Dodwell  was 
the  first  to  call  attention  to  the  possibility  of  such  a 
breach  by  publishing,  in  1705,  his  '  Case  in  View.'  He 
thought,  most  wisely,  that  it  would  be  better  to  be  pre- 
pared for  a  case  which  must  inevitably  occur,  and  not 
be  obliged  to  decide  it  hastily  when  the  time  for  action 
came.  They  were  now  all  agreed  that  their  allegiance  was 
due  to  their  deprived  Fathers ;  but  when  those  fathers 
were  all  removed  by  death,  or  if  any  survivors  agreed 
to  waive  their  claim — what  then  ?  The  '  Case  in  View  ' 
became  the  *  Case  in  Fact '  five  years  later,  and  Dodwell 
published  his  last  work  under  that  title,  urging  that  now 
was  the  time  to  close  the  schism.  The  practical  result 
was  that  in  1710  the  Shottesbrooke  group,  Kobert  Nelson, 
'  and  others,'  returned  to  the  National  Church.  The  loss 
of  Dodwell  and  his  friends  was  by  far  the  greatest  blow 
which  the  Nonjuring  cause  had  yet  received.  In  the 
first  place,  names  must  be  weighed  as  well  as  counted^ 
and  those  of  the  seceders  were  very  weighty  names 
indeed.  Then,  again,  it  was  quite  different  from  the 
secession  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Sherlock  and  Mr.  Higden, 
who,  able  as  they  were,  were  sorely  put  to  it  to  justify 
their  apparent  inconsistency,  and  were  forced,  in  fact, 
to  cry  peccavimus.  But  Dodwell  and  his  friends  had  no 
need  to  utter  any  such  humiliating  cry.      It  may  have 

1  See  Lee's  Life  of  Kettleivell,  i.  126-7. 


THE  NONJURORS 

been — I  think  it  was — an  open  question  whether  i 

that  they,  and  Dodwell  especially,  had  written 
before  was  logically  consistent  with  their  re-absorption 
in  the  National  Church.  But  their  position  was  a  per- 
fectly intelligible  one.  They  owed  allegiance  to  certain 
men  ;  when  those  men  died,  or  waived  their  claims  to 
allegiance,  why  should  they  any  longer  hold  aloof  from 
common  worship  with  their  brethren  ?  The  general 
verdict  of  posterity  has  been  that  Dodwell  and  his  friends 
were  right — Hickes  and  his  friends  wrong ;  in  other  words, 
the  general  sympathy  of  Churchmen  has  been  with  the 
Nonjurors  up  to  the  crisis  of  1710 — against  them  after  that 
crisis ;  and  as  Dodwell  was  undoubtedly  the  leader  of 
what  may  be  called  the  winning  party,  that  circumstance 
alone  makes  his  position  in  one  sense  unique.  1710  was 
the  beginning  of  the  end,  that  end  being  the  extinction  of 
the  Nonjurors.  When  the  bells  of  Shottesbrooke  rang  a 
joyous  peal  to  welcome  back  Dodwell  and  his  friends  to 
their  beautiful  parish  church,  they  at  the  same  time 
virtually  sounded  a  funeral  knell  in  anticipation  of  the 
death  of  the  party  with  which  those  good  men  had  acted 
for  more  than  twenty  years. 

The  matter,  however,  does  not  seem  so  clear  to  me  as 
it  does  to  the  majority  of  Churchmen.  Was  the  major 
premiss  of  the  argument  quite  as  Dodwell  put  it  ?  '  Wc 
owe  allegiance  to  certain  men.'  Yes!  but  surely  it  was, 
and  always  had  been,  far  more  than  a  mere  question  as  to 
Whether  certain  individuals  had  or  had  not  a  claim  upon 
their  allegiance.  It  was  not  a  personal  matter  at  all,  but 
B  matter  of  general  principle.  If  it  had  been  argued, 
'The  Church   baa  nothing  to  do  with  politics,  and  her 

unity  OUght  not  to  he.  broken  tor  the  sake   of   this   w   that 

eoular  ruler,'  it  would  haw  been  intelligible.     Hut  this 
When  tin  \  ceased  to  be  Nonjurors  they  did 


HENEY   DODWELL  237 

not  cease  to  be  Jacobites,  and  therefore  they  could  not 
throw  themselves  thoroughly  into  the  services  of  the 
Church  to  which  they  returned.  There  were  still  what 
were  called  '  the  State  Prayer  Days  ' — that  is,  National 
Fast  and  Thanksgiving  Days — which  they  could  not 
observe  because  they  were  appointed  by  an  authority 
which  they  did  not  recognise ;  and  such  days  were  far 
more  numerous  then  than  they  are  now.  There  were 
still  the  '  immoral  prayers  '  at  all  the  regular  services,  in 
which  they  could  not  conscientiously  join ;  and  the 
various  devices  which  they  adopted  to  show  they  were 
not  joining  in  them — such  as  standing  and  facing  the 
congregation,  sliding  off  their  knees  and  sitting  on  a 
hassock,  turning  over  the  leaves  of  their  Prayer  Books,  so 
as  to  avoid  hearing  the  obnoxious  words,  and  even  pretend- 
ing to  take  snuff — were  rather  embarrassing  proceedings, 
and  not  very  edifying  to  the  general  congregation. 

Dodwell  died  at  Shottesbrooke  on  June  7,  1711.  It 
may  seem  strange  that  both  the  life  and  writings  of  the 
man  who  may  be  called  the  captain  of  the  winning  side 
should  have  fallen  into  oblivion.  Dodwell  was  quite  as 
pious  and  far  more  learned  a  man  than  either  Ken  or 
Sancroft,  Nelson  or  Kettlewell ;  and  yet  for  ten  persons 
who  know  something  about  these  good  men  there  is 
probably  not  one  who  knows  anything  about  '  the  great 
Mr.  Dodwell.'  But  when  one  looks  more  closely  into 
the  matter  it  is  not  surprising.  Dodwell 's  writings  are 
defective  both  in  style  and  method,  and  the  strange 
theories  he  sometimes  propounds  and  the  strange  argu- 
ments he  sometimes  uses  are  enough  to  shipwreck  any 
writer  ;  and  he  had  not  the  fortune  to  find  a  biographer 
who  could  make  his  memory  live.  Mr.  Brokesby  did  no 
service  to  his  friend  and  patron  by  writing  a  very  slight 
and    inadequate    biography   of    him.      Hearne    tells    us 


238  THE  NONJURORS 

(August  17,  1705)  that  he  had  seen  in  Mr.  Cherry's  study 
in  an  octavo  book  a  great  many  particulars  relating  to 
Mr.  Dodwell's  life,  '  which,'  he  says,  '  he  will  take  care  to 
publish  if  he  survives  him.' 1  He  did  survive  him  for 
a  short  time,  but  not  long  enough  to  carry  out  his  pur- 
pose, if  he  had  formed  it ;  and  he  can  hardly  have 
communicated  these  particulars  to  Mr.  Brokesby,  for 
his  '  Life  of  Dodwell '  is  singularly  jejune  in  details,  and 
Hearne  was  really  justified  in  writing  somewhat  con- 
temptuously of  it.2  It  would  have  been  better  if  Hearne 
had  himself  undertaken  the  life;  we  gain  a  more  vivid 
idea  of  what  Dodwell  was  from  Hearne's  brief  obituary 
notices  of  him  than  from  Brokesby's  whole  volume.3 

It  would  have  been  better  still  if  Hearne  had  given 
us  the  biographies  of  both  his  patrons,  anticipating  a 
modern  title  and  calling  his  work  '  The  Lives  of  Two 
Good  Men,'  for  he  is  as  enthusiastic  in  his  admiration 
of  Francis  Cherry  as  of  Henry  Dodwell ;  and  the  two 
would  have  made  excellent  companion  pictures,  which 
no  one  could  have  drawn  better  than  their  protege. 

Francis  Cherry  (16654-1713)  was  a  fine  specimen  of  a 
class  which  thrives  nowhere  so  well  as  in  England.  He 
was  a  thorough  country  gentleman,  addicted  to  manly 
sports  and  graced  with  polite  accomplishments,  '  a  bold 
rider,'  and  'an  elegant  dancer,'  and  so  popular  among 
his  country  neighbours  that  he  was  called  '  the  idol  of 
Berkshire.'  But  he  had  higher  gifts  than  these  ;  he  was 
a  man  of  intellectual  tastes  and  varied  culture,  a  collector 
ol  manuscripts,  coins,  and  other  antiquities,  a  man  who 
was  quit'    competent  to  assist  Dodwell  and  Hearne  in 

1  OolUetiontt  i»  80.  '  Bee  BtiUquia  Hearniana,  i.  814. 

1  Bee  Bearne'i  Oolketioiu,  iii.  170-7. 

'  i  adopt  Beanie1   data    Cherry'i  granddaughter,  Mrs.  Eliza  Berkeley, 
date  two  years  Inter.     Sec  her  Prcfnco  to  the  Poems  of  bet  BOn, 
'  ley. 


FEANCIS  CHEERY  239 

their  learned  researches ;  and,  best  of  all,  a  man  of 
genuine  piety,  modesty,  and  sweetness  of  temper.  He 
was  educated  as  a  gentleman-commoner  at  St.  Edmund 
Hall,  Oxford,  and  having  taken  his  degrees,  married  very 
suitably  and  settled  down  for  life  at  Shottesbrooke.  He 
threw  in  his  lot,  heart  and  soul,  with  the  Nonjurors,  and 
was  so  far  a  Jacobite  that  all  his  sympathies  were  with 
the  exiled  Stuarts ;  but  he  was  far  too  honourable  and 
high-minded  a  man  to  join  in  any  secret  plots  and  con- 
spiracies. There  is,  indeed,  an  idle  story  told  of  him, 
that,  hunting  with  the  King's  stag-hounds,  which  used  to 
meet  in  his  neighbourhood,  he  gave  a  lead  at  a  dangerous 
leap  to  William  III.,  also  a  bold  rider,  hoping  that  '  the 
usurper '  would  follow  him  and  break  his  neck ;  but  if 
he  ever  expressed  the  wish  it  could  only  have  been  in 
joke,  for  such  a  truculent  design  was  quite  foreign  to  his 
character.  He  made,  however,  no  secret  of  his  senti- 
ments ;  his  noble  residence  in  Shottesbrooke  Park  was  a 
general  rendezvous,  and  often  a  harbour  of  refuge  for  dis- 
tressed Nonjurors  ;  he  could  make  up  seventy  beds,  and 
there  he  frequently  entertained  men  like  Kobert  Nelson 
and  Thomas  Ken ;  and  Charles  Leslie,  when  outlawed, 
lay  for  some  months  perdu,  disguised  in  regimentals,  in  a 
house  belonging  to  Mr.  Cherry  at  White  Waltham,  hard 
by.  He  was  not  one  of  those  Jacobites  who  tacitly 
acquiesced  in  the  claims  of  Queen  Anne,  on  the  ground 
that  she  was  a  sort  of  regent  for  her  brother.  On  the 
contrary,  he  showed  his  marked  disapproval  of  her  con- 
duct in  accepting  the  crown.  When  she  was  still  only 
the  Princess  Anne,  she  gave  tokens  of  her  favour  to  the 
handsome  young  squire  whom  she  was  accustomed  to 
meet  out  hunting ;  but  when  she  became  queen,  Cherry 
carefully  avoided  her  ;  and  she,  so  far  from  being  of- 
fended, sent  him  presents  of  wine,  and  said,  '  I  esteem 


240  THE   NONJURORS 

Mr.    Cherry   one   of    the    honestest    gentlemen    in    my 
dominions.' 

There  is  a  particular  interest  about  the  life  of  Francis 
Cherry,  because  it  presents  to  us,  so  to  say,  the  other  side 
of  the  shield.  The  country  gentleman  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries  is  often  represented  as  an  igno- 
rant, bigoted,  sensual  animal,  only  one  link  removed  from 
a  brute  ;  and  such  a  slave  to  field  sports  that,  as  was 
wittily  said,  Goliath's  curse  seemed  to  have  passed  upon 
him,  •  I  will  give  thee  unto  the  Fowls  of  the  Air  and  to 
the  Beasts  of  the  Field.'  '  Macaulay's  description  of  the 
country  gentleman  of  the  period  is  too  well  known  to  be 
quoted.  It  is  derived,  he  tells  us,  partly  from  the  light 
literature  of  the  day ; 2  but  the  description  of  Mr.  Cherry 
is  drawn  from  well-ascertained  facts ;  and  it  shows  us 
that  if  there  were  Squire  Westerns,  there  were  also 
Squire  Allworthys  in  real  life.  We  must,  of  course, 
make  some  little  allowance  for  the  partiality  of  Hearne 
towards  the  man  who  had  been  the  making  of  him  ;  but, 
so  far  as  I  know,  there  is  really  nothing  to  be  set  per 
contra  to  the  glowing  panegyrics  which  he  passes  upon 
Francis  Cherry.3 

The  next  member  of  the  Shottesbrooke  group  is 
Hearne  himself. 

Thomas  Hearne  (1678-17H5)  belongs,  strictly  speaking, 
to  the  later  Nonjurors;  but  he  was  so  very  closely  con- 
nected with  Dodwell  and  Cherry,  'his  two  best  friends,' 
that  it  would  be  almost  cruel  to  separate  him  from  them. 
He  has  given  so  vivid  an  idea  of  himself,  both  in  his 
'Collections'  and  his  'Autobiography,'  that  it  would  be 

1  Quoted    by    Addison   (?)   in   the    Spectator,   vol.    viii.   No.    688. 

I  Mm /'s  happy  description  of  the  class. 
■  Bee  Hktory  of  England,  i.  166  8. 

*  Bee    Rtliqu  ,    I    287-8.      Collections   (Oxf.   Hist.  Soc), 

i.  2T2,  iii.  886,  and  pa 


THOMAS  HEARNE  241 

sheer  Philistinism  not  to  describe  him  largely  in  his  own 
words. 

Hearne  was  born  at  White  Waltham,  where  his  father 
was  parish  clerk  and  '  kept  a  writing-school.'  '  Circum- 
stances, of  course,  did  not  allow  him  to  afford  his  son  a 
liberal  education,  who  had  therefore 

to  go  to  day-labour  for  a  subsistence.  But  the  boy  being  much 
talked  of  for  the  skill  he  had  obtained  in  reading  and  writing 
beyond  his  years,  it  occasioned  that  pious  and  learned  gentle- 
man, Francis  Cherry  Esqr,  to  put  him  to  the  Free-School  at 
Bray  on  purpose  to  learn  the  Latin  tongue,  which  his  father 
was  not  entirely  master  of. 

So  in  the  early  part  of  1693  he  went  to  Bray  School  as  a 
day-boy,  'living  at  his  father's  house  three  miles  off.' 
This  went  on  for  about  two  years,  and  then,  as  Hearne 
tells  us  with  delightful  naivete, 

Mr.  Cherry  being  fully  satisfied  of  the  great  and  surprizing 
progress  he  had  made,  by  the  advice  of  that  good  and  learned 
man,  Mr.  Dodwell  (who  then  lived  at  Shottesbrooke)  he  resolved 
to  take  him  into  his  own  House,  which  accordingly  he  did  about 
Easter,  1695,  and  provided  for  him  as  if  he  had  been  his  own 
son.  He  instructed  him,  not  only  in  the  true  principles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  but  in  Classical  Learning,  and  'twas  for 
this  end  that  when  he  was  at  home  he  constantly  heard  him 
read,  and  when  absent  he  took  care  that  he  should  read  to  Mr. 
Dodwell. 

Then  follows  a  grateful  account  of  the  pains  these 
two  good  men  took  with  him,  and  then  '  Mr.  Cherry 
thought  now  of  nothing  less  than  giving  him  an  aca- 
demical education.'  So  he  had  him  '  entered  a  Battelar 
at  S.  Edmund  Hall,'  and  in  '  Easter  Term,  1696,  came 
himself  with  him  to  Oxford,  provided  a  Chamber,  and  all 
things  necessary  for  him,  and  saw  him  fully  settled  down 

1  In  this  sketch  of  Hearne,  any  words  put  between  inverted  commas  are 
quotations  from  the  Autobiography,  unless  otherwise  described  in  the  notes. 


242  THE  NONJURORS 

before  he  returned.'  Soon  after  he  had  taken  his  degree 
of  B.A.  in  1699  '  a  proposal  was  made  to  him  by  a  Person 
that  was  then  looked  upon  as  pretty  honest,  tho'  he  has 
proved  otherwise  since,  of  going  to  Maryland.'  This  is 
Hearne's  rather  ungracious  way  of  describing  a  kind 
letter,  still  extant,  which  Dr.  Kennett,  who  was  rector  of 
Shottesbrooke,  and  also  Vice-Principal  of  St.  Edmund 
Hall,  wrote  to  him  offering  him  parochial  work  under 
Dr.  Bray.  However,  in  the  interests  of  learning,  it  is 
certainly  well  that  be  did  not  accept  it.  Oxford  was  the 
proper  place  for  him,  and  at  Oxford  he  remained.  He 
1  went  to  the  Bodleian  every  day,  and  Hudson  when 
elected  Library  Keeper  took  him,  by  consent  of  the 
Curators,  as  assistant-keeper.  The  Library  being  in  very 
great  confusion,  and  requiring  the  care  of  a  very  diligent 
and  knowing  Person  to  put  it  in  order ' — such  a  person, 
in  short,  as  himself.  In  1703  he  became  M.A.,  and  ■  some 
time  after  a  Chaplainship  of  Corpus  Christi  College  was 
offered  him  by  Dr.  Thomas  Turner,  the  President,  on 
condition  that  he  kept  his  place  at  the  Library.  But  he 
was  forced  to  decline  the  offer,  Dr.  Hudson  being  resolved 
that  he  should  hold  nothing  else  with  the  Library.'  In 
1712  he  'became  Second  Keeper  of  the  Bodleian,'  and 
on  '  Jan.  19,  1714-5,  was  very  honourably  elected  Archi- 
typographus  and  Superior  or  Esquire  Bedell.'  But  '  Dr. 
Hudson  pretended  that  the  offices  of  Under-Libraiian 
and  Beadle  were  inconsistent,'  so  he  actually  locked  the 
Library  against  him.  But  Hearne  ■  continued  to  execute 
the  office  of  Librarian  when  he  could  get  into  the 
Library  until  Jan.  23  [1716-6],  when  he  desisted  upon 
account  of  the  oaths,  that  being  the  last  day  fixed  by  the 
new  Act.1  Some  thought  that  the  Act  would  not  touch 
him,  but  by  the  advice  of  'his  best  friends'  he  retired 
quietly,  and  lived  for  the  remaining  twenty  years  of  his 


THOMAS  HEAENE  243 

life  in  his  rooms  in  Edmund  Hall,  prosecuting  his  studies 
to  the  great  benefit  of  posterity.  He  had  many  posts 
offered  him,  which  he  specifies,  both  in  and  out  of 
Oxford,  but  he  declined  them  all,  'preferring  a  good 
conscience  before  all  manner  of  preferment  and  worldly 
honour.'  He  died  in  his  rooms  on  June  10,  1735,  and 
was  buried  in  the  neighbouring  churchyard  of  St.  Peter's 
in  the  East. 

Hearne  derived  his  Nonjuring  principles  from  Dodwell 
and  Cherry,  and  when  he  heard  that  they  had  returned 
to  the  National  Church  he  writes  in  approval  of  their 
action ;  but  he  had  not  then  heard  that  '  the  Nonjuring 
bishops  continued  their  succession'  (as  he  puts  it).1 
There  is  no  doubt  that  eventually,  in  spite  of  his  immense 
respect  for  Dodwell,  he  identified  himself  with  the  Hickes, 
not  the  Dodwell  section.2 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  Dodwell  and 
Cherry  did  not  live  long  enough  to  see  the  accession  of 
the  House  of  Hanover,  and  that  towards  the  close  of 
their  lives  there  was  a  very  strong  hope  that  Queen  Anne 
might  be  succeeded  by  her  brother.  But  Hearne  lived 
to  see  all  these  hopes  frustrated,  and  his  expressions  with 
regard  to  those  who  complied  under  the  new  dynasty  are 
even  stronger,  if  possible,  than  those  which  he  used 
against  the  compilers  of  the  earlier  period.  He  was,  in 
short,  a  thoroughpaced  Jacobite  and  Nonjuror,  and,  with 
rare  exceptions,  has  a  good  word  for  those  only  who 
agreed  with  his  political  views.  He  was  also  one  of 
those  pen-portrait  painters  who  have  no  such  colour  as 
grey ;  his  black  men  are  very  black  and  his  white  men 
very  white.  He  thought  also  that  he  had  been  treated 
shabbily,  and  hence  there  is  a  vein  of  disappointment  and 
soreness  running  through  his  '  Collections.'  So,  while  they 
1  Reliquice  Heamiance,  i.  187.  2  Ibid.  iii.  116. 


244  THE  NONJURORS 

give  one  of  the  fullest  and  most  vivid  accounts  we  possess 
of  the  time  in  which  he  lived,  his  estimates  of  his  contem- 
poraries must  be  taken  with  a  large  grain  of  salt.  They 
were  not  published,  and  probably  not  intended  by  him 
for  publication,  though  no  greater  service  has  been  ren- 
dered to  letters  than  by  the  publication  of  the  '  Reliquiae 
Hearnianap,'  containing  judicious  selections  from  the 
145  '  volumes '  by  Dr.  Philip  Bliss  in  1857,  and  a  fuller 
edition  in  18G9,  and  the  far  fuller  publication  still  which 
is  now  being  made  under  able  editorship  by  the  Oxford 
Historical  Society.  By  a  cruel  irony  of  fate,  the  only 
writing  of  Thomas  Hearne  on  the  Nonjuring  question 
published  during  his  lifetime  was  one  written  on  the 
other  side. 

Among  some  MSS.  of  his  patron,  Mr.  Cherry,  was  said  to 
be  found  a  MS.  of  Mr.  H.  which  he  endeavoured  in  vain  to 
recover,  and  this  disappointment  very  much  vexed  him.  .  .  . 
It  was  an  undeserved  piece  of  Chastisement  as  Mr.  H.  had 
openly  declared  himself  ashamed  of  a  tract  written  in  his 
younger  days,  and  never  intended  for  the  Press.  It  was  '  A 
Vindication  of  those  who  take  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  to  his 
present  Majesty '  [King  William  III.]  and  was  printed  in  1731. 

The  anonymous  author  of  the  Preface  writes  as  if  he 
were  a  friend  of  Hearne ;  but  it  certainly  seems  as  if  the 
publication  were  a  grim  and  rather  cruel  joke.  Probably 
no  one  would  have  been  more  dismayed  and  annoyed  by 
the  publication  than  Mr.  Cherry  himself,  the  unconscious 
and  innocent  cause  of  it.  But  Hearne  need  not  have 
feared  that  posterity  would  doubt  that  he  was  'an  honest 
man,'  both  in  his  own  technical  sense  of  the  term  and  in 
a  wider  and  better  sense. 

There   is   another   honoured    name    which    for   mor 
tea  tons  than  one  we.  naturally  associate  with  the  Shotfc 
brooke  group.     Robert  Nelson  was  an  intimate  friend  of 
them  all,  a  frequent  visitor  at  Bhotteshrooke  Park,  and 


EOBEET  NELSON  245 

one  who  took  the  same  road  that  Dodwell  and  Cherry 
took  when  they  came  to  the  parting  of  the  ways  at  the 
death  of  Bishop  Lloyd.  He  was  a  link  between  the  Non- 
jurors and  the  Jurors  ;  for  he  numbered  among  his  friends 
such  men  as  Sancroft,  Ken,  Frampton,  Kettlewell,  Cherry, 
Dodwell,  Hickes,  and  Lee  on  the  one  side,  and  Tillotson, 
Bull,  Beveridge,  Sharp,  Smalridge,  S.  Wesley,  Bray, 
Thoresby,  and  Mapletoft  on  the  other.1  It  was  not  that 
he  was  one  of  those  vapid  personages  who,  having  no 
particular  opinions  of  their  own,  are  ready  to  adapt 
themselves  to  the  opinions  of  those  with  whom  they  are 
brought  into  contact.  Quite  the  reverse.  His  principles 
were  perfectly  definite  ;  but  he  had  the  happy  knack  of 
being,  in  the  proper  Pauline  sense  of  the  expression,  '  all 
things  to  all  men.'  'You,'  wrote  Hickes  to  him,  'can 
discourse  with  all  sorts  of  men,  with  whom  you  differ  in 
matters  of  religion  in  the  same  easy  and  obliging  manner 
as  with  those  with  whom  you  agree.' 2 

Bobert  Nelson  (1656-1715)  was  a  Londoner  by  birth, 
the  son  of  a  '  Turkey  merchant,'  who  died  when  Bobert 
was  only  a  year  old,  leaving  him  a  good  fortune.  He 
was  educated  for  a  short  time  at  St.  Paul's  School ;  but 
on  the  removal  of  his  mother  to  Driffield,  or  Dryfield,  near 
Cirencester,  his  education  was  continued  under  a  private 
tutor,  George  Bull,  then  vicar  of  the  two  Suddingtons, 
also  near  Cirencester.  He  probably  owes  his  strong 
Church  principles  to  the  early  impression  made  on  him 
by  Bull,  and  he  amply  repaid  the  obligation  by  writing 
an  appreciative  life  of  his  old  tutor,  one  of  the  few 
biographies  that  will  live.  He  entered  as  a  fellow- 
commoner  at  Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  but  for  some 

1  This  point  is  well  brought  out  by  Mr.  Abbey  in  Tlie  English  Church 
in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  ch.  iii.,  '  Bobert  Nelson,  his  Friends,  and  Church 
Principles.' 

2  Secretan's  Life  of  Nelson,  i.  37. 


246  THE  NONJURORS 

Q6T6I  n  sided.1  In  1G7(J  we  find  him  in  London, 
and  about  this  time  sprang  up  his  intimacy  with  Tillotson, 
the  closest  friend  of  his  early  manhood.  He  made  the 
Grand  Tour — a  necessary  completion  in  those  days  of 
the  education  of  a  gentleman — and  became  acquainted 
at  Rome  with  Lady  Theophila,  widow  of  Sir  Kingsniill 
Lucy,  and  daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Berkeley,  whom  he 
married  in  108-2.  It  is  not  quite  clear  whether  it  was 
before  or  after  her  marriage  with  Nelson  that  Lady 
Theophila  joined  the  l\oman  Communion.  At  any  rate 
Nelson  did  not  know  it  when  he  contracted  the  union, 
and  the  discovery  was  a  great  grief  to  him.  But  the 
difference  of  religion  made  no  difference  in  his  affection 
for  his  wife,  and  their  union  was  perfectly  happy  until 
her  death  in  1706.  So  far,  however,  from  being  himself 
in  the  least  inclined  towards  Home,  he  wrote  after  his 
marriage  his  first  work  under  the  title  of  '  Transubstantia- 
tion  contrary  to  Scripture ;  or  the  Protestant's  Answer 
to  the  Seeker's  Eequest '  (1687). 

When  the  Revolution  took  place,  Nelson  seems  never 
to  have  had  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  what  his  duty  was 
m  regard  to  the  King,  but  very  considerable  doubt  as  to 
what  it  was  in  regard  to  the  Church.  Of  course  he  had 
ii"  Deed  to  become  a  professed  Nonjuror  in  the  literal 
Benae,  because  he  held  no  office  which  necessitated  baking 
asm  oath..  But,  like  his  friend  Cherry,  he  was  a 
thorough  Jacobite.  He  disapproved  altogether  of  the 
expedition  ol  the  Prince  of  Orange;  and  when  it  was 
imminent  he  withdrew  from  England,  where  he  was  paying 
a  visit,  and  spent  BOme  time  m  Italy,  where  he  had  much 
Dondenoewitb  Lord  Melfort,  King  James's  ambas- 

hfl  'Matriculations,  Graduations,  Ac,  of  Nonjurors    in   the 
'•>  Ol  OtmMdg*,1  in  tl...  MS.  Look  in  St.  John's  Libit 

(ttob.).Cuii  Tiin.  Boelo-Oommeo  i 


EOBEET  NELSON  247 

sador  at  Rome.1  He  returned  to  England  in  1691  with  a 
firm  determination  never  to  acknowledge  William  and 
Mary  as  his  sovereigns  ;  but  he  was  not  so  certain  whether 
he  was  for  that  reason  bound  to  leave  the  Communion 
of  the  Established  Church.  The  only  difficulty  which 
weighed  with  him  was  that  of  attending  services  where 
prayers  were  offered  for  sovereigns  whom  he  could  not 
recognise  ;  and,  oddly  enough,  the  man  who  led  him  to 
withdraw  from  '  the  national  Communion '  was  Tillotson. 
It  was  natural  for  him  in  his  perplexity  to  consult  his 
friend  ;  and  Tillotson's  reply  was  perhaps  unexpectedly 
decisive  :  '  I  think  it  plain  that  no  man  can  join  in  prayers 
in  which  there  is  any  petition  which  he  is  verily  persuaded 
is  sinful.  I  cannot  endure  a  trick  anywhere,  much  less 
in  religion.'2  So  Nelson  became  a  Nonjuror,  and  this 
threw  him  into  the  society  of  men  from  whom  he  learned 
to  dislike  more  and  more  the  latitudinarian  and  Erastian 
views  which  were  making  headway  in  the  National  Church, 
and  also  to  take  higher  sacramental  views.  Kettlewell, 
as  long  as  he  lived,  and  afterwards  Hickes,  took  the  place 
which  Tillotson  held  before,  and  their  influence  over 
Nelson  is  very  perceptible.  But  all  the  while  it  seems  to 
me  that  he  was  yearning  for  the  breach  to  be  healed ;  and 
he  gladly  embraced  every  opportunity  of  joining  when  he 
possibly  could  in  any  good  work  with  those  from  whom  he 
was  temporarily  divided.  His  was  essentially  a  practical 
mind  ;  and  he  probably  felt  that  he  could  do  more  practical 
good  in  conjunction  with  a  large  community  than  with  a 
small  one.  No  one  knew  him  during  his  Nonjuring  stage 
better  than  Dr.  Hickes,  and  when  he  returned  to  the 
Established  Communion,  Hearne  tells  us  that '  Mr.  Nelson 
was  not  much  wondered  at  by  Dr.  Hickes  and  his  friends 
for  acting  thus,  for  he  bad  all  along  spoke  generally  more 

1   See  Secretan,  p.  33.  ■  Ibid.  pp.  46-7. 


248  THE  NONJURORS 

honourably  of  the  complyers  than  of  the  sufferers,  and 
had  written  the  Life  of  bp.  Bull,  who  always  did 
comply,  though  he  were  undoubtedly  a  very  great  man.'  ' 
But  Nelson  never  ceased  to  be  a  Jacobite.  The  book 
which,  perhaps,  of  all  others  made  the  greatest  nutter  in 
the  Kevolution  dove-cot,  '  The  Hereditary  Bight  Asserted,' 
was  not  only  approved  by  Nelson,  but  actually  revised 
by  him  before  its  publication,2  and  this,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, was  in  1713,  when  he  was  in  full  communion 
with  the  Established  Church.  His  withdrawal  from  the 
Nonjurors  was  about  as  severe  a  blow  as  they  could 
have  received ;  for  Nelson's  high  character  and  sound 
judgment  were  so  much  respected  by  many  Church- 
men that  they  thought  whatever  he  did  must  be  right. 
It  was  a  particularly  severe  blow  to  his  friend  Hickes, 
though  he  may  not  have  been  surprised  at  it.  When  he 
heard  that  it  was  impending  he  begged  Nelson  to  wait 
until  he  should  have  had  time  to  write  out  for  him  in  full 
the  reasons  for  continuing  the  separation.  Nelson  con- 
sented to  wait  until  the  following  Easter,  but  no  longer. 
Hickes  was  prevented  by  sickness  from  carrying  out  his 
work  in  tn lie,  and  Nelson  received  the  Holy  Communion 
;tt  St.  Mildred's,  Poultry,  on  Easter  Day,  1710,  at  the  hands 
of  Archbishop  Sharp,  who  had  much  to  do  with  his  return 
to  the  Established  Church.  It  is  to  the  credit  of  both 
parties  thai  the  step  does  not  seem  to  have  interfered 
with  the  friendship  of  Nelson  and  Hickes.  They  had 
been  very  intimate,  and  ai  one  time  when  they  lived  close 
together  in  Great  Ormond  Street,  saw  each  other  even- 
day.  Nelson  often  speaka  of  'my  neighbour  the  Dean,' 
iin  expression  which  Beems  to  indicate  that  on  the  one 
band  he  did  qo!  recognise  Hickes's  lay-deprivation  of  the 
cy,  and  on  the  other  that  he  was  not  aware  of  his 
.117.  Baa  s  an  tan,  pp.  60,  86-8. 


EOBEET  NELSON  249 

consecration  to  the  episcopate.  It  is  said  that  at  one 
time  they  lived  together  in  Lamb's  Conduit  Street ;  but 
it  is  rather  difficult,  and  not  very  important,  to  trace  out 
Nelson's  various  dwelling-places ;  they  were  all  in  or 
about  London,  as  was  necessary  for  a  man  who  was  in 
the  thick  of  all  philanthropic  and  Church  work.  Having 
lived  for  some  years  at  Blackheath,  he  seems  to  have 
removed  in  1703  to  Ormond  Street,  and  after  the  death  of 
Lady  Theophila  to  a  smaller  house.  His  last  residence 
was  in  a  house  of  his  own  in  Gloucester  Street,  to  which 
his  remains  were  removed,  for  he  died  at  Kensington  in 
the  house  of  his  cousin,  Mrs.  Delicia  Wolff,  on  January  16, 
1714-5.  A  curious  circumstance  is  connected  with  his 
burial,  which  illustrates  at  once  the  good  sense  of  the  man 
and  the  extraordinary  estimation  in  which  he  was  held. 
The  nearest  burying  ground  to  his  residence  was  a  new 
cemetery  in  Lamb's  Conduit  Fields,  in  the  parish  of 
St.  George  the  Martyr ;  but  there  was  for  some  reason  a 
prejudice  against  the  use  of  it  until  Nelson,  according  to 
his  own  directions,  was  buried  there ;  then  the  prejudice 
was  dispelled,  as  if  it  were  quite  safe  to  follow  where  so 
good  a  man  led  the  way.1 

To  recount  all  the  efforts  for  pious  and  benevolent 
purposes  in  which  Nelson  took  a  more  or  less  leading 
part  is  really  to  enumerate  almost  all  the  organisations  of 
the  English  Church  in  one  of  the  most  active  periods  of 
her  history.  The  Eeligious  Societies  (in  the  technical, 
not  the  general,  meaning  of  the  term),  the  Societies  for 
the  Eeformation  of  Manners,  the  Society  for  Promoting 
Christian  Knowledge,  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of 
the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  the  Associates  of  Dr.  Bray, 
the  Charity  Schools,  the  Corporation  of  the  Sons  of  the 
Clergy,  the  Commission  for  Building  Fifty  New  Churches 
1  See,  e.g.,  Reliquiae  Hearniance,  iii.  176. 


THE  NONJURORS 

in  and  about  London,  all  found  in  Robert  Nelson  a  most 
active  and  intelligent  supporter,  who  spared  neither  per- 
sonal pains  nor  money  in  their  behalf.  Moreover,  he 
anticipated  the  work  of  a  later  day  by  suggesting  many 
others,  such  as  theological  colleges,  hospitals  for  in- 
curables, Schools  for  Blackguard  Boys  (corresponding  to 
what  we  call,  more  euphemistically,  Ragged  Schools).1 
In  short,  wherever  there  was  any  good  to  be  done,  there 
was  the  '  pious  Robert  Nelson  '  2  ready  to  do  it. 

With  the  name  of  Robert  Nelson  one  naturally  asso- 
ciates that  of  another  Nonjuring  layman,  Francis  Lee, 
who  took  an  active  part  in  Nelson's  benevolent  schemes, 
helped  him  in  some  of  his  publications,  and  worked  up 
the  materials  which  Nelson  and  Hickes  had  collected  for 
the  Life  of  Kettlewell.  Lee  subscribes  one  of  his  letters 
to  Nelson  :  '  To  the  best  of  friends  from  the  most 
affectionate  of  friends.'  So,  having  noticed  one  of  the 
friends  let  us  now  turn  to  the  other. 

Francis  Lee  (1661-1719)  was  one  of  the  Lichfield 
family,  who  went  from  Merchant  Taylors'  to  St.  John's, 
Oxford,  as  a  scholar  in  1679,  and  was  elected  fellow  in 
1682.  Like  many  Nonjurors,  when  he  was  deprived  of 
his  fellowship  he  studied  medicine,  and,  having  first  been 
a  student  at  the  University  of  Leyden,  took  the  M.D. 
at  Padua,  and  practised  as  a  physician  for  a  year 
or  two  in  Venice.  As  he  passed  through  Holland  on  his 
way  home  in  1694  he  became  acquainted  with  the  writings 
of  Mrs.  Jane  Lead,  whom  he  sought  out  in  London,  and 
became  not  only  her  convert,  but  her  son-in-law,  marry- 
ing, at  her  suggestion,  her  widowed  daughter,  Barbara 
Walton,  in  whose  home  in  Hogsden  Square  he  resided. 

1  s.  ■  Bean  ten,  pp,  91,  I  it 

'lll'i'  »■    I"  •  :•< UN  i.il   titl,.,  and  Mr.  Srcrrtan  rightly  entitles  his  work, 

l.,rt  Nelson. 


FBANCIS  LEE  251 

In  conjunction  with  his  old  friend  at  school  and  college, 
Kichard  Koach,  he  became  a  chief  supporter — indeed,  one 
of  the  founders — of  the  short-lived  Philadelphian  Society, 
he  and  Eoach  publishing  the  '  Theosophical  Transactions  ' 
of  that  Society  at  intervals  in  1697.  Meanwhile  his  old 
friends  were  by  no  means  pleased  with  his  new  proceed- 
ings ;  his  brother,  William  Lee,  strongly  objected  to  his 
marriage  ;  his  brother  Nonjuror,  Henry  Dodwell,  to  his 
■  enthusiasm  '  and  separation  from  the  Church.  A  very 
long  and  interesting  correspondence  between  him  and 
Dodwell  ensued,  commencing  in  1697  and  ending  in  1702. 
Dodwell  began  it  with  the  words  : 

Worthy  Sir, — I  was  at  once  both  troubled   and   surprised 
to  hear,  that  so  good  and  so  accomplished  a  person  as  you  are, 
should  be  engaged  in  a  new  division  from  that   church,  for 
whose  principles  you  had  so  generously  suffered  ; 
and  ended  his  letter : 

Eeturn  to  your  deserted  brethren,  and  contribute  not  to  the 
further  divisions  and  ruin  of  that  small  number,  to  which  we 
are  reduced  that  I  may  again  be  able  to  justify  by  principles, 
the  subscribing  myself,  Your  most  affectionate  brother, 

Heney  Dodwell. 

One  can  well  understand  the  dismay  of  Dodwell,  and 
presumably  other  Nonjurors,  at  this  defection  from  their 
ranks,  for  Lee  was  an  honour  to  their  cause.  He  had  a 
high  reputation  at  Oxford  both  for  learning  and  character ; 
on  account  of  his  knowledge  of  Oriental  literature  he  was 
called  '  Eabbi  Lee,'  as  Smith  was  called  '  Eabbi  Smith  ' ; 
and  Hearne  informs  us  that  '  the  Town's  People  of  Oxon 
had  a  mighty  opinion  of  him.' '  Lee  replied  to  Dodwell 
in  the  most  humble  and  Christian  spirit,  as  the  first 
sentence  will  show  : 

Most  dear  and  worthy  Sir,— I  esteem  myself  exceedingly 
obliged   to  you   both   for  the   kindness  and  seventy  of  your 

1  Collections,  i.  338. 


THE   NONJURORS 

;,i  heartily  pray  that  in  the  day  of  recompense,  this 
your  most  generous  and  Christian  intention  towards  me  in 
'.  and  towards  the  Church  of  Christ  in  general,  may  be 
had  in  remembrance  before  God,  angels,  and  men.  For  I  am 
not  able  to  thank  you  sufficiently  myself,  but  am  confident  this 
labour  of  love  in  you  shall  not  lose  its  reward. 

It  is  impossible  to  make  further  extracts  from  the 
correspondence,  which  ends  with  those  touching  words 
from  Lee:  'I  beseech  you  to  believe,  Errare  possum, 
lum  ticns  e88t  nolo.  And  that  my  chiefest  study  is  to  be 
found  a  living  and  sound  member  of  the  Catholic  Church.' 
The  whole  of  it  appears  in  that  extraordinary  repertory 
of  information,  Mr.  Walton's  '  Memorial  of  William  Law,' 
pp.  L88  -232.  The  arguments  of  Mr.  Dodwell,  backed  up 
by  those  of  Mr.  Edward  Stephens,  are  supposed  to  have 
converted  Lee.  At  any  rate  he  returned  to  the  communion 
of  the  Nonjurors,  and  was  warmly  welcomed  by  them. 
The  Society  of  the  Philadelphians  was  broken  up  in  1703, 
soon  after  the  correspondence  closed,  and  in  1709  Lee 
published  a  'History  of  Montanism,'  which  was  thought 
to  re-establish  his  orthodoxy;  but  I  doubt  whether  he 
ever  gave  up  his  belief  in  Mrs.  Lead.  His  friend  lioach 
certainly  never  did,  and  there  is  at  any  rate  a  vein  of 
mysticism  in  Lee's  later  life  which  is  probably  due  to 
the  Philadelphia!]  episode.  The  writer  of  the  article  on 
Lee  in  tlif  '  I  dictionary  of  National  Biography'  seems  to  me 
to  hit  the  truth  when  he  says  :  'Lee  then  [after  the  break- 
ing up  of  the  Philadelphian  Society]  turned  his  activity  to 
men'  practical  Bchemes.  Bis  intimacy  with  the  intensely 
practical  Robert  Nelson  may  have  influenced  him,  as  he 
"ii  ins  part  unquestionably  influenced  Robert  Nelson.'1 
The  two  were  very  closely  connected  in  their  later  life. 

remarks  on  this  point  in  3  t "inn-chin  the 

(oi   •  InsJ  edition)  oh.  iii- '  Rob  1 1 

i    .Ln.i  Ohnrch  Principle  .'  pp.  ISO  I. 


FKANCIS   LEE  253 

They  prepared  together  the  manuscripts  of  J.  E.  Grabe, 
the  learned  Prussian,  who  was  a  friend  of  both,  for 
publication.  Lee  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  to  sug- 
gest to  Nelson  the  foundation  of  charity  schools  after 
the  German  plan,  and  to  have  helped  him  largely  in  the 
composition  of  his  most  famous  work,  '  A  Companion  to 
the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Church  of  England.'  He 
was  entrusted  by  Nelson  with  his  papers  before  his  death, 
and  published  in  the  same  year  (1715)  from  them  the 
'Address  to  Persons  of  State  and  Quality.'  Nelson's 
friend  Hickes  seems  to  have  had  equal  confidence  in  him, 
and  it  was  from  the  papers  of  Hickes  and  Nelson  that  he 
compiled  the  biography  of  John  Kettlewell,  which  gives 
us,  perhaps,  more  information  than  any  other  single  book 
about  the  early  Nonjurors.  By  entrusting  Nelson's  papers 
to  Lee  it  was  probably  intended  that  he  should  write  his 
friend's  life,  but  he  did  not  live  to  execute  the  task.  The 
following  interesting  notice  is  taken  from  the  Eawlinson 
MSS.  in  the  Bodleian :  ■  Easter  Day,  1718,  at  the  Oratory 
of  his  brother,  William  Lee,  dyer,  in  Spital  Fields,  Dr.  F. 
Lee  read  a  touching  and  beautiful  declaration  of  his  faith 
betwixt  offertory  sentences  and  prayer  for  Christ's  Church. 
It  was  addressed  to  the  Eev.  James  Daillon,  Count  de 
Lude,' l  then  officiating.  The  only  puzzling  thing  about 
this  notice  is  its  date.  One  can  quite  understand  that 
Lee,  after  what  some  would  call  his  escapade  in  the  matter 
of  the  Philadelphian  Society,  would  be  required  to  reha- 
bilitate himself  by  making  a  public  declaration  of  his  faith 
before  '  claiming  Catholic  Communion,'  which  was  the 
avowed  object  of  the  declaration  ;  and  also  that  it  should 
be  made  at  the  oratory  of  his  brother,  who  had  felt  himself, 

1  James  Daillon,  Count  de  Lude,  was  the  ejected  vicar  of  Wrawby, 
then,  and  until  quite  late  years,  the  mother  church  of  Brigg,  a  town  of 
considerable  size  in  North  Lincolnshire. 


254  THE  NONJURORS 

have  seen,  socially  as  well  as  theologically  aggrieved. 

no  certainly  would  have  expected  it  earlier,  and  not 

three  years  after  the  deaths  of  Nelson  and  Hickes,  who 

were  quite  the  leading  spirits  among  the  Nonjurors,  and 

had  both  taken  Lee  to  their  hearts  years  before. 

Thomas  Boivdler  (1661-1738),  though  far  less  pro- 
minent than  the  rest,  certainly  belonged  to  that  inner 
circle  of  Nonjurors  which  embraced  the  Shottesbrooke 
and  the  London  groups,  the  principal  members  of  which 
have  been  already  described.  He  was  a  near  neighbour 
of  Nelson  and  Hickes  in  Great  Ormond  Street  and  an 
intimate  friend  of  both.  He  was  a  Nonjuror  in  a  sense 
in  which  from  the  nature  of  the  case  his  friend  Nelson 
could  not  be ;  for,  holding  an  office  under  Government, 
he  was  able  to  testify  to  the  sincerity  of  his  principles  by 
making  a  sacrifice  for  their  sake  of  all  his  worldly  pro- 
spects. He  was  in  the  Admiralty,  next  in  position  to 
Samuel  Pepys,  at  the  time  when  James,  Duke  of  York, 
afterwards  James  II.,  was  Lord  High  Admiral.  James 
had,  with  all  his  faults,  the  true  Stuart  gift  of  winning 
the  devoted  attachment  of  those  who  were  brought  into 
personal  contact  with  him ;  so  when  he  lost  the  throne 
all  the  clerks  of  the  Admiralty  except  one  resigned  office, 
Thomas  Bowdler  among  the  number.  On  the  death  of 
James  his  friends  attempted  to  induce  Bowdler  to  comply. 
I '.nt  In;  had  probably  by  this  time  come  under  the  powerful 
influence  of  Dr.  Hickes,  who  made  and  kept  more  mi  D 
Nonjurors  than  any  other  person.  To  an  urgent  letter 
In  in  his  brother-in-law,  adducing  arguments  why  he 
ihould  'qualify  himself  for  public  business  by  taking  the 
oaths,1  Bowdler  sent  the  following  reply  : — 

The  report  with  you  of  the  B.  of  G.  [Frampton]  is  newee  to 
to  have  tor  some  time  lived  oloee  in  the  oountry,  but  I 
;.ou  will  find  her  is  abused.     As  to  B.  of  B.  and  \\ . 


THE  HEADLEY  GEOUP  255 

[Ken]  you  have  a  friend  with  you  who  knowes  as  much  of  his 
mind  as  another.  And  for  D.  of  W.  [Hickes]  I  believe  I  may 
say  of  him  that  hee  will  continue  his  present  sentiments  as  long 
as  he  can  distinguish  right  from  wrong.  They  are  all  of  the 
great  and  good  examples  which  I  shall  be  proud  always  to 


So  Thomas  Bowdler  remained  a  Nonjuror  until  his 
death,  which  took  place  in  Queen  Square,  in  July  1738. 
The  Nonjuring  tradition  remained  in  the  family,  and  his 
grandson  was  one  of  the  last  of  the  body,  and  will  be 
noticed  in  a  future  chapter.  The  Church  principles  of 
the  Nonjurors  were  held  by  the  Bowdlers  within  contem- 
porary recollection.2 

Next  to  Shottesbrooke — longo  sed  proximus  intervcUlo 
— perhaps  the  most  interesting  country  spot  in  connection 
with  the  Nonjurors  is  the  village  of  Headley,  or  Hedly, 
in  the  beautiful  district  of  Surrey,  between  Leatherhead 
and  Epsom.  It  is  associated  with  four  Nonjurors  :  the 
two  Bonwickes,  father  and  son,  Elijah  Fenton,  the  poet, 
and  William  Bowyer,  the  printer. 

Ambrose  Bonwicke,  the  elder  (1652-1722),  received 
Holy  Orders,  and  therefore  properly  belongs  to  the  last, 
not  to  the  present  chapter  ;  but  he  is  so  closely  connected 
with  the  other  three  that  it  seemed  to  be  a  more  awkward 
arrangement  to  separate  him  from  them  than  to  put  him 
out  of  his  proper  place.  Moreover,  it  is  not  in  his  clerical 
so  much  as  in  his  tutorial  capacity  that  he  comes  before 
us.  Indeed,  he  never  had  any  parochial  charge,  and  the 
chief  interest  in  him  lies  in  the  fact  that  he  was  father 
of  Ambrose  Bonwicke,  the  younger.  He  was  the  son  of 
John  Bonwicke,  rector  of  Great  Horsley,  Surrey,  and  was 

1  Memoir  of  John  Bowdler,  with  some  account  of  Thomas  Bowdler, 
p.  12.  The  '  John  '  and  '  Thomas  '  of  this  Memoir  were  both  descendants 
of  the  Nonjuror. 

1  See  Archdeacon  Churton's  Memoir  of  Joshua   Watson,  i.  231,  and 


THE  NONJURORS 

educated  at  Merchant  Taylors'  School,  and  thence  proceeded 
to  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  where  he  was  successively 
scholar  and  fellow.  In  1686  he  was  appointed  head 
master  of  his  old  school  by  the  Merchant  Taylors'  Com- 
pany, who  successfully  resisted  James  II.'s  infatuated 
policy  when,  more  suo,  he  attempted  to  thrust  in  a 
creature  of  his  own.  But  though  James  was  no  friend 
to  him,  Bonwicke  was  faithful  in  his  allegiance.  He  was 
a  successful  head  master,  and  great  efforts  were  made  to 
overcome  his  scruples  and  retain  his  services,  but  nothing 
could  induce  him  to  take  the  new  oaths,  so  he  had  to  be 
dismissed  in  1691.  He  then  set  up  a  private  school  at 
Hedly,  where  he  seems  to  have  won  the  respect  of  all  his 
pupils. 

Ambrose  Bonwicke,  the  younger  (1692-1714),  son  of 
the  above,  had  a  rather  touching  story.  He  was  brought 
up,  of  course,  in  the  Nonjuring  principles  of  his  father, 
and  was  sent  to  his  father's  old  school,  Merchant  Taylors', 
of  which  he  rose  to  be  captain.  There  was  no  doubt 
that,  on  his  merits,  he  would  have  been  elected  to  a 
scholarship  at  St.  John's,  Oxford,  which,  leading  as  it 
did  to  a  fellowship,  was  the  great  ambition  of  Merchant 
Taylors'  boys.  But  the  head  boys  had  to  read  the  school 
prayers  in  turn  ;  and  one  of  these  prayers  was  the  first 
collect  for  the  King  or  Queen  in  the  Communion  Office. 
It  really  Looks  ;is  if  this  prayer  had  been  selected  as  a  test 
of  loyalty  ;  for  it  is  not  a  prayer  which  one  would  natu- 
rally select  for  the  use  of  schoolboys:  and  it  was  generally 
considered  a  criterion  of  a  clergyman's  loyalty  whether 
he  ohose  the  fust  or  the  Becond  collect  for  the  sovereign, 
the  first  implying  the  recognition  of  a  sovereign  de  pure 
u  </'■  facto,  the  Becond, not.  Bonwicke,  as  ;i  Non- 
juror and  tin  boo  or  a  Nonjuror, could  not  conscientiously 
use  the  prayer,  so  is  Bpite  of  the  reasonings  and  remon- 


AMBBOSE   BONWICKE  257 

strances  of  his  friends,  he  persistently  omitted  it.  This 
reached  the  ears  of  the  Company,  who  were  the  electors, 
and,  when  the  election  came  on,  though  Bonwicke  was 
admitted  to  have  acquitted  himself  very  well  in  every 
way,  he  was  passed  over  with  a  compliment,  thus  be- 
coming a  Confessor  in  the  Nonjuring  cause  at  an  earlier 
age  than  any  of  the  little  company.  He  was  sent  to 
St.  John's,  Cambridge,  instead  of  St.  John's,  Oxford, 
and  was  quickly  elected  to  a  scholarship  there.  But 
here  again  his  sensitive  conscience  troubled  him.  He 
had  bound  himself  by  an  oath  not  only  to  observe  the 
statutes  himself,  but  to  make  others  do  so  ;  and  as  he 
could  not  do  this  he  was  tempted  to  '  quit  his  scholarship  ' 
until  his  '  good  friend  Mr.  E.  freed  him  pretty  well  [but 
not  altogether]  from  his  scruples.'  He  positively  died 
of  conscientiousness ;  the  amount  of  reading  he  went 
through,  all  of  which  is  minutely  recorded  in  the  'Life,' 
is  perfectly  appalling ;  he  studied  so  hard,  and  lived  so 
ascetic  a  life  that  the  strain  was  too  much  for  him. 
He  died  at  the  early  age  of  twenty-two  in  his  college 
rooms,  with  his  devotional  books  beside  him.  The 
bereaved  father  was  persuaded  by  William  Bowyer l  to 
write  anonymously  a  touching  little  memoir  of  his  extra- 
ordinarily promising  son.  It  did  not  appear  until  1729, 
seven  years  after  the  author's  death,  under  the  title  of 
'  A  Pattern  for  Young  Students  in  the  University,  set 
forth  in  the  Life  of  Mr.  Ambrose  Bonwicke,  sometime 
Scholar  of  St.  John's  College,  in  Cambridge ' ;  and  in 
1870  the  little  work  was  re-edited  by  Professor  J.  E.  B. 
Mayor,  with  a  most  interesting  address  '  To  the  Beader  ' 
prefixed,  and  a  large  number  of  notes,  which  are  a  per- 
fect mine  of  accurate  information  about  Cambridge  in 
the  early  eighteenth  century. 

1  See  infra,  p.  261  et  seq. 


258  THE   NONJURORS 

The  next  Nonjuror  who  was  for  a  time  connected 
with  Headley  took  no  part  in  the  Nonjuring  controversy, 
and  is  rarely  or  never  mentioned  by  writers  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  but  there  was  no  more  consistent  member  of  the 
body. 

Elijah  Fenton  (1(383-1 730)  has  the  honour  of  a  niche 
in  that  literary  Valhalla,  Dr.  Johnson's  «  Lives  of  the 
Poets,'  and  his  personal  character  has  found  a  warm 
admirer  in  the  stout  old  dictator.  To  tell  the  truth, 
the  man  was  better  than  the  poet,  whose  effusions 
did  not  reach  a  high  standard,  even  for  that  un- 
poetical  age.  But  beyond  a  constitutional  indolence, 
which  his  varied  work  shows  that  he  must  have  made 
strenuous  efforts  to  throw  off,  we  hear  nothing  but  good 
about  the  man.  His  father,  John  Fenton,  was  a  gentle- 
man of  ancient  family  and  good  circumstances  in  Stafford- 
shire ;  Elijah  was  the  youngest  of  eleven  children,  and 
was  sent  to  Jesus  College,  Cambridge,  with  a  direct  view 
to  his  becoming  a  clergyman  and  earning  his  living  in 
that  profession.  Having  taken  his  B.A.  degree  in  1704, 
he  found  that,  though  he  was  quite  ready  to  acknow- 
ledge Queen  Anne  as  his  sovereign,  he  could  not  con- 
scientiously take  the  Abjuration  Oath  ;  so  the  ministry 
of  iIp  Established  Church  was  closed  to  him.  In  the 
stately  Language  of  Dr.  Johnson  : 

With  many  other  wise  and  virtuous  men,  who  at  that  time 
of  disoord  And  debate  consulted  conscience,  whether  well  or  ill 
Informed,  more  than  Interest,  he  doubted  the  Legality  of  the 
Government,  and  refusing  to  qualify  himself  for  publiok  employ- 
ment by  the  oaths  required,  Left  the  University  without  a 
i  ever  heard  that  the  enthusiasm  of  opposition 
Impelled  him  to  separation  from  the  Chnroh.    By  this  perverse- 

f   Integrity    he    was   driven    out    a  commoner  of    Nature, 

■  1  from  the  regular  modes  of  profit  and  prosperity,  and 

Tlii      i  :  :i    mi 


ELIJAH  KENTON  259 

reduced  to  pick  up  a  livelihood  uncertain  and  fortuitous ;  but 
it  must  be  remembered  that  he  kept  his  name  unsullied,  and 
never  suffered  himself  to  be  reduced,  like  too  many  of  the  same 
sect,  to  mean  and  dishonourable  shifts.1 

And  he  added  in  a  later  page  :  '  Of  his  morals  and  his 
conversation  the  account  is  uniform  ;  he  was  never  named 
but  with  praise  and  fondness,  as  a  man  in  the  highest 
degree  amiable  and  excellent.' 2  Fenton  gained  a  sub- 
sistence by  various  honourable  employments.  First  he 
acted  as  secretary  to  the  Earl  of  Orrery,  Charles  Boyle, 
the  same  who  had  waged  a  very  unequal  war  with 
Bentley  about  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles  of  Phalaris. 
Then  he  became  assistant  to  Ambrose  Bonwicke,  the 
elder,  in  his  school  at  Headley ;  then  master  of  a  school  at 
Sevenoaks,  which  under  him  acquired  some  reputation  ; 
then  we  find  him  acting  as  tutor  for  six  years  to  Lord 
Broghill,  son  of  his  former  patron  Lord  Orrery ;  then  in 
the  strange  capacity  of  instructor  in  literature  to  Craggs, 
the  well-known  Secretary  of  State,  whose  early  education 
had  been  neglected,  and  who,  by  the  advice  of  Alexander 
Pope,  tried  to  improve  himself  under  Fenton's  direction, 
but  died  of  small-pox  very  soon  after ;  and  finally  in  the 
household  of  Lady  Trumbull,  widow  of  Sir  W.  Trum- 
bull, already  noticed,3  at  Easthampstead,  to  whom  he 
had  been  recommended  by  his  faithful  friend  Pope.  He 
acted  as  tutor  to  young  Trumbull,  and  when  the  youth 
went  to  Cambridge,  accompanied  him  thither  as  '  gover- 
nor.' After  the  education  was  completed  Lady  Trumbull 
still  retained  him  at  Easthampstead  as  '  an  auditor  of 
accounts,'  and  there  he  died  in  August  1730. 

Samuel  Parker  (1681-1730)  was  another  quiet,  scho- 
larly man,  like   Fenton,  who  could   not  conscientiously 

1  Lives  of  the  Poets,  ii.  227,  '  Fenton.'  *  Ibid.  ii.  231. 

3  See  sitjpra,  p.  223. 


260  THE   NONJURORS 

take  the  oaths,  but  was  content  to  pursue  the  even  tenour 
of  his  way  without  creating  any  disturbance  in  either 
Church  or  State.  He  was  a  son  of  that  Bishop  of 
Oxford  who  obtained  a  rather  unenviable  notoriety  in  the 
reign  of  James  II.;  but — like  Diomede1 — he  was  cer- 
tainly '  better  than  his  father '  ;  for  there  was  nothing  in 
the  career  of  the  younger  Samuel  Parker  which  argued 
the  self-seeking  and  ^flexibility  of  conscience  so  painfully 
manifest  in  the  elder.  He  was  educated  at  Trinity 
College,  Oxford,  and  lived  at  Oxford  all  his  life,  marrying 
the  daughter  of  Mr.  Clements,  a  famous  bookseller  there. 
From  the  first  he  identified  himself  with  the  Nonjurors, 
and  became  a  personal  i friend  of  their  chief  leaders.  Like 
them  he  was  a  studious  man,  fond  of  literary  pursuits, 
and  produced  several  works  of  value,  which  will  be 
noticed  in  their  proper  place.  He  was  one  of  those  few 
mysterious  •  others, '.besides  the  Shottesbrooke  group,  who 
were  induced  by  the  arguments  of  Dodwell  to  return 
to  the  National  Church  in  1710-1.  But  he  resolutely 
declined  to  enter  into  controversy  in  print  on  the  subject, 
did  not,  after  his  compliance,  take  Holy  Orders,  as  it  was 
expected  that  he  would  do,  and  died,  it  was  said,  from  the 
effects  of  an  over-sedentary  life,  July  14,  1730,  at  Oxford. 
In  a  brief  'Life'  prefixed  to  the  1734  edition  of  his 
•Bibliotheca  Biblica'  it  is  rather  foolishly  remarked 
that  '  he  had  from  the  beginning  embraced  the  principl<  - 
of  the  Nonjurors,  and  constantly  observed  a  strict  uni- 
formity in  his  principles  and  practice.'  This,  of  course, 
roused  the  ire  of  a  thorough-paced  Nonjuror  like  Hearne, 
who  wrote  indignantlj  that  it  was  false,  for  he  had 
...  raced  from  the  true  old  Nonjurmg  principles,  forsaki  □ 

Id  friend-,  and  so  forth.1 

1  vy./m,  s  miliar  pain,  Horaoa,  Odes,  l.  ir>.  28. 
*  s«  •  fUUqufa  Hearnianc  ,  UL  its  g, 


NONJUBING  PEINTEES  261 

Printers,  who  were  often  also  in  those  days  what 
we  should  now  call  'publishers,'  were  naturally  a  very 
important  element  in  the  Nonjuring  economy;  for,  as 
the  Nonjuring  clergy  were  shut  out  of  what  were  called 
•  the  national  pulpits,'  and  as  they  would  be  the  very  last 
to  preach  in  any  other  pulpits  except  those  of  their  own 
little  oratories,  where  the  congregation  would  be  more 
select  than  numerous,  they  were  forced  to  have  recourse 
to  the  press  as  the  only  means  of  disseminating  their 
views.  They  could  use  this  means  very  effectively,  for 
it  is  astonishing  how  exceptionally  large  a  proportion  of 
Nonjurors,  both  lay  and  clerical,  could,  and  did,  handle 
the  pen  of  a  ready  writer.  But  printers  would  hardly  be 
forthcoming  unless  they  were  more  or  less  in  sympathy 
with  their  authors'  sentiments ;  for  they  had  to  run  the 
risk  of  being  prosecuted,  and  frequently  were  prosecuted 
and  punished  for  printing  seditious  matter.  By  far  the 
most  important  of  those  who  performed  this  essential 
service  was  another  Nonjuror  who  was  connected  with 
Headley. 

William  Boioyer  (1663-1737)  was  the  son  of  a 
London  citizen,  was  apprenticed  by  his  father  to  a 
printer,  and  followed  that  business  through  life.  In  1686 
he  was  admitted  to  the  freedom  of  the  Company  of 
Stationers.  In  1699  he  set  up  for  himself  in  Little 
Britain,  but  removed  the  same  year  to  Dogwell  Court, 
Whitefriars.  From  the  first  he  must  have  been  employed 
in  printing  the  works  of  Nonjurors,  for  we  are  told  that 
the  works  of  Hickes  and  Nelson  were  all  ushered  into 
the  world  by  Bowyer.  Nelson  '  had  a  peculiar  regard 
for  Mr.  Bowyer,'  and  so  had  Charles  Leslie.  He  rendered 
great  service  to  the  Nonjurors,  not  only  by  printing  their 
books,  but  by  employing  Nonjuring  clergymen,  who  were 
often  at  their  wits'  end  to  find  any  employment  at  all 


or)2  THE  NONJURORS 

remunerative,  as  correctors  of  the  press  for  him.  The 
Nonjurors  had  on  one  occasion  a  chance  of  showing  their 
appreciation  of  his  service.;  in  a  very  practical  manner. 
At  the  close  of  January  1712-3,  his  printing  office  and 
dwelling  in  Dogwell  Court  were  destroyed  by  fire,  and 
Bowyer  suffered  a  loss  of  more  than  five  thousand  pounds, 
which  looked  like  ruin  to  a  man  in  his  position  ;  for  he 
was  yet  in  a  comparatively  small  way  of  business.  But 
a  Royal  Brief  was  procured  for  him,  and  his  friends  rallied 
round  him,  especially  the  Nonjurors.  Nelson,  who  had 
the  means,  helped  him  largely  ;  while  Ambrose  Bonwicke, 
the  elder,  contributed  in  a  very  touching  way.  Bowyer 
had  placed  his  son,  known  afterwards  as  '  the  learned 
printer,'  under  Bonwicke's  charge  at  Headley,  induced  pro- 
bably by  the  fact  that  Bonwicke  was  a  Nonjuror.  After 
the  catastrophe  Bonwicke  continued  to  board  and  educate 
the  lad  for  a  whole  year  without  making  any  charge, 
and  concealing  from  his  father  who  was  the  benefactor. 
Bowjrer  more  than  recovered  from  his  loss,  and  became, 
with  the  help  of  his  son,  whom  he  took  into  partnership 
in  1722,  the  most  famous  printer  of  the  day.  He  tho- 
roughly identified  himself  with  the  Nonjurors;  for  we 
find  him  present  and  signing  his  name  as  a  witness  at 
the  consecration  of  at  least  two  Nonjuring  bishops  in  a 
Xonjuring  oratory. 

Willia?)i  Bowyer,  the  younger  (1699-1777),  was  also 
a  Nonjuror.  '  The  learned  printer  '  was,  of  course,  a  far 
more  highly  educated  man  than  his  father;  but,  though 
he  went  us  a  sizar  to  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  in 
L716,  and  won  Eloper's  Exhibition  in  1719,  he  never  took 
liis  B.A.  degree,  finding,  no  doubt,  the  oaths  an  obstacle. 
This  probably  prevented  him  from  gaining  a  fellowship 

khete.       Eii    QUIIC     OCCUni     among    the    'Matriculations, 

Graduations,  kc.<  of  Nonjurors  in  Cambridge,'  sent  by 


THE  TWO  BOWYERS  263 

Thomas  Baker  to  Dr.  Eawlinson ;  and  he  made  no  secret 
of  his  sentiments.  It  was  he  who  persuaded  his  old 
master  at  Headley  to  write  the  '  Life  of  Ambrose  Bon- 
wicke,'  and  himself  wrote  the  Preface  to  that  Life  when 
it  was  published  in  1729 ;  and  in  the  same  year  he  was 
appointed  printer  of  the  Votes  of  the  House  of  Commons 
through  the  influence  of  Onslow,  the  Speaker.  On  that 
occasion  Onslow  was  asked  in  the  House  whether  he  was 
aware  that  Bowyer  was  a  Nonjuror,  and  replied,  '  I  am 
quite  sure  of  this — that  he  is  an  honest  man.'  He  was 
also  a  very  religious  and  charitable  man,  of  irreproachable 
life ;  and  this  work  is  largely  indebted  to  him  for  the 
share  he  had  in  writing  Nichols's  '  Literary  Anecdotes  of 
the  Eighteenth  Century,'  so  often  quoted  herein.  Another 
Nonjuring  printer  was  James  Bettenham,  who  was 
certainly  also  a  Nonjuror  himself,  for  we  find  him  a 
member  of  the  last  congregation  of  regular  Nonjurors  in 
London  under  the  ministry  of  Bishop  Gordon.1 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  label  laymen  as  to  label  clergy 
Nonjurors,  unless  they  held  some  office  for  which  the 
taking  of  the  oaths  was  a  qualification.  Those  who  held 
commissions  in  the  army  would,  of  course,  come  under 
this  head,  and  we  gather  incidentally  that  there  were 
officers  in  the  army  who  lost  their  commissions  as  Non- 
jurors. Thus,  when  Kettlewell  (December  20, 1694)  wrote 
to  Bishop  Lloyd  proposing  that  a  fund  should  be  raised 
for  the  relief  of  their  clergy,  he  says  :  '  Were  this  a  fund 
for  the  soldiery,  though  God  knows  many  of  them  have 
need  enough,  it  may  be,  some  might  fancy  they  could 

1  See  Political  and  Literary  Anecdotes  of  His  Own  Times,  by  Dr.  Wm. 
King,  Principal  of  St.  Mary  Hall,  Oxon.,  p.  191,  &c.  King  calls  Bettenham 
'  a  sanctified  member  of  Gordon's  congregation,  but  one  of  the  greatest  knaves 
I  have  ever  known  ' ;  but  then  King  had  violently  quarrelled  with  his  old 
friends  the  Jacobites,  and,  moreover,  had  just  had  a  lawsuit  with  James 
Bettenham. 


264  THE   NONJURORS 

with  better  colour  charge  it  as  a  listing  of  men';1  and 
Bishop  Ken  left  in  his  will  '  To  the  Deprived  Officers  the 
sum  of  Forty  Pounds.'  '2  But  the  names  of  military  men 
are  not  prominent  among  the  Nonjuring  laity. 

Schoolmasters,  again,  who  required  a  licence  from  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese,  and  could  not  be  licensed  without 
taking  the  oaths,  would  be  legally  bound  to  declare  them- 
selves, whether  they  were  ordained  or  not.  But  the  law 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  at  all  strictly  enforced  in 
their  case,  for  we  find  several  Nonjurors — Ambrose  Bon- 
wicke  and  Elijah  Fenton,  to  wit — who  had  recourse  to  this 
occupation  in  order  to  gain  a  living.  In  December  1705 
the  subject  came  before  Parliament  in  rather  a  curious 
way  during  the  famous  '  Church  in  Danger  '  debate. 

My  Lord  W — n3  in  the  House  of  Peers  took  notice  that 
'  a  certain  noble  Lord  of  that  House  had  educated  his  sons  at 
a  seminary  kept  by  a  Nonjuror.'  The  Archbishop  [of  York, 
I  >.-.  John  Sharp]  who  perceived  himself  was  pointed  at,  declared 
that  although  he  had  sent  both  his  sons  to  Mr.  Ellis's  school, 
who  was  a  sober,  virtuous  man,  and  a  man  of  letters,  yet  he 
had  qualified  himself  according  to  the  laws,  when  they  were 
Bent  to  him.  But  as  soon  as  he  was  informed  that  Mr.  Ellis 
had  refused  to  take  the  oaths  he  immediately  took  away  his 
BOn,  who  then  only  remained  with  him,  and  removed  him  to 
ceptdonable  place.  And  this  was  above  three 
ye.us  before  the  complaint  was  made  in  the  House  of  Peers, 
and  was  rather  an  instance  of  his  dislike  of  those,  principles  he 
I  arged  with  abetting.     Whereas  others  chose  rather  to 

run  the    hazard    of    BUCh  unreasonable  ernstires    and    reflections 

;•  mi  forego  the  advantages  of  so  flourishing  a  school,  and  such 
instructor  of  their  children.    Thus  did  several  persons 

Ol    note   and   distinction,    without   being    thought    inclinable    to 

asm.4 
James  Ellis,  the  Nonjuror  in  question,  was  b  graduate 
ol  Oriel  College,  Oxford,  but   does  uol    appear  to  have 

11.  96.  -  I 

'  Ltyfccj  John  Sharp,  Archbia)  ■  269. 


NONJUBING  SCHOOLMASTERS  265 

taken  Holy  Orders.  He  is  described  in  lists  of  Non- 
jurors simply  as  '  Schoolmaster  of  Thistleworth  '  (Isle- 
worth),  near  the  Thames,  in  Middlesex.  Hearne  twice 
refers  to  him  as  a  successful  and  high-class  schoolmaster 
at  Thistleworth.1  Thomas  Jacomb,  master  of  the  Free 
School,  Coleshill,  also  a  layman,  followed  the  example  of 
his  saintly  vicar,  John  Kettlewell,  and  became  a  Nonjuror ; 
and  Jonathan  Moor,  '  Schoolmaster  at  Long  Melford,' 
following  probably  the  example  of  his  parish  priest, 
Nathanael  Bisbie,  did  the  same  ;  and  so  did  George  Speed, 
'  Master  of  the  School  in  St.  Mary  Axe,'  London,  Henry 
Johnson,  '  Master  of  "Wandsworth  School,'  and  Thomas 
Lee,  master  of  the  famous  school  of  St.  Saviour's, 
South  wark. 

In  a  lower  grade  there  would  probably  be  many 
teachers  in  the  charity  schools  who  were  Nonjurors  at 
heart ;  for  there  was  a  widespread  impression,  which 
could  hardly  be  without  some  foundation,  that  these 
excellent  institutions  tended  to  become  nurseries  of 
Jacobitism.  Bishop  Gibson,  for  instance,  was  the  last 
man  to  make  reckless  and  unfounded  statements,  and  he 
distinctly  affirms  that  'while  the  Protestant  succession 
was  doubtful  some  persons,  otherwise  virtuous  and  good 
men,  endeavoured  to  get  the  management  of  charity 
schools  into  their  hands,  and  to  make  them  instrumental 
in  rousing  and  spreading  an  aversion  to  the  Protestant 
Settlement.' 2  Archbishop  Wake  also  complains  of  an 
attempt  of  the  sort  in  1716  ;  and  in  an  account  of  the 
riots  which  took  place  in  London  on  May  28  and  29  (the 
King's  birthday  and  the  Restoration  anniversary)  we  are 
told  that  '  among  the  noisiest  and  most  violent  of  the 

1  See  Collections,  i.  19  and  ii.  9. 

2  Instructions  to  Masters  and  Mistresses  of  Charity  Schools,  1724 ;  also 
Gibson's  printed  Charges,  p.  145,  and  Skeat's  History  of  the  Free  Churches, 
p.  272. 


o6G  THE  NONJURORS 

Jacobite  mob  were  the  charity  school  boys It  was 

said  the  masters  and  mistresses  poisoned  the  children 
with  principles  which  would  lead  to  the  gallows.  Boys 
were  told  that  the  institution  from  which  they  derived  so 


much  advantage  was  about  to  be  abolished.'  l 

The    medical    profession   numbered   some   Nonjuring 
clergy,  two  of  whom  were  bishops,  among  its  ranks,  and 
also  some  Nonjuring  laymen  of  great  distinction.     One 
has   been   already   noticed,    Francis   Lee,  whom   it  was 
thought  better  not  to  separate  from  his  friend  and  coad- 
jutor. Robert  Nelson,  particularly  as  he  does  not  appear 
to  have  practised  medicine  in  England.     But  he  certainly 
studied  medicine  at  Leyden,  took  an  M.D.  degree,  and 
practised  in  Venice,  and  also  became  some    years  later 
(1708)  a  licentiate  of  the  College  of  Physicians  in  London. 
Roger  Ken/yon  ■  also,  one  of  the  ejected  fellows  of   St. 
John's,  Cambridge,  became  physician  at  the  Court  of  St. 
Germains,  first  to  James  II.  and  then  to  his  son,  James 
Francis.     There  he  formed  an  intimate  friendship  with 
Charles  Leslie,  and  it  is  to  Kenyon  more  than  any  one  else 
tliut  we  owe  the  collection  and  publication  of  Leslie's  very 
valuable  theological  works.     In   1719,  when  Leslie  felt 
that  his  sands  of  life  were  running  out,  he  expressed  a 
wish  that  his  theological  (not,  be  it  observed,  as  charac- 
teristic of  the  Nonjurors'  position,  his  political)   works 
might  be  collected  and  published   'for  the  good  of  the 
Church    <>f    England.'     He  communicated   his  desire  to 
Roger  Kenyon,  who  took  up  the  matter  warmly,  wrote  to 
'       Mends  in    England,  and  enlisted  among  others  the 
services  of  William  Bowyer,  who  collected  large  subscrip- 
The  result  was  the  publication,  is  1721,  of  the  two 

.'./..„  ui  ihr  JaeobUt  Ti»i<-s,  i.  886  7. 

I  :  t  to  Dr.  Bawlinsoa  on  the  •  Matriculations 

ridge  *  we  find  •  Emyon  (Roger),  LuMMtrlensls, 
I    |       Mar,  16,  L686/7.1 


NONJURING  PHYSICIANS  267 

folio  volumes  dedicated  to  'R.  K.' — that  is,  of  course, 
Eoger  Kenyon.1  Roger  was  the  brother  of  George 
Kenyon,  of  Peel  House,  Lancashire,  whose  valuable  MSS. 
are  now  at  Gredington,  in  the  possession  of  the  present 
Lord  Kenyon.  There  is  also  among  the  '  Matriculations, 
&c,  of  Nonjurors  in  the  University  of  Cambridge '  another 
Roger  Kenyon,  who  graduated  B.A.  in  1685,  '  nee  ultra  pro- 
greditur  '2 — no  doubt  because  he  could  not  take  the  oaths. 
Another  distinguished  member  of  the  medical  profes- 
sion who  became  a  Nonjuror  was  James  Henry  Paman 
(1626-95).  He  had  been  early  trained  in  the  principles 
which  led  to  this  result,  for  in  his  undergraduate  days  he 
was  a  pupil  at  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge,  of  William 
Sancroft,  with  whom  he  contracted  a  lifelong  friendship. 
He  was  afterwards  elected  fellow  of  St.  John's  College, 
and  became  one  of  the  famous  socii  ejecti  at  the  first 
deprivation.  He  seems  always  to  have  had  the  medical 
profession  in  view,  for  having  graduated  in  Arts  he  kept 
an  Act  for  a  medical  degree  in  1656,  graduated  M.D.  in 
1658,  and  was  incorporated  M.D.  at  Oxford  in  1659.  He 
was  Senior  Proctor  at  Cambridge  in  1656,  elected  Public 
Orator  in  1674,  and  held  that  office  until  1681 ;  he  was 
appointed  Professor  of  Physics  at  Gresham  College  in 
1679,  was  elected  F.R.S.  in  the  same  year,  and  fellow  of 
the  College  of  Physicians  in  1687.  In  1677  he  went  to 
live  at  Lambeth  with  his  old  college  tutor,  Sancroft,  then 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  in  1684  graduated  LL.D. 
at  Cambridge,  and  was  appointed  by  Sancroft  Master  of 
the  Faculties.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  he  had  a  distin- 
guished career,  but  he  had  no  hesitation  about  resigning 
bis  mastership  and  following  his  friend  and  mentor  into 

1  See  a  most  interesting  article,  by  the  Hon.  Mrs.  Bulkeley-Owen  (mother 
of  the  present  Lord  Kenyon),  in  The  Neivbery  House  Magazine  for  July  1893, 
and  the  Kev.  E.  J.  Leslie's  Life  of  Charles  Leslie,  p.  508,  and  passim. 

-  T.  Baker  to  Dr.  Rawlinson,  ut  supra. 


THE  NONJURORS 

retirem*  nt  when  the  archbishop  refused  the  oaths. 
J  taring  the  last  few  years  of  his  life  he  lived  in  the  parish 
of  St.  Paul's,  Covent  Garden,  and  was  buried  in  St.  Paul's 
Church. 

Samuel  Jebb  (1694-1772)  was  another  Nonjuror  who 
unbraced  the  medical  profession.  He  was  educated  at 
Mansfield  Grammar  School  and  St.  Peter's  College,  Cam- 
bridge, with  a  view  to  his  taking  Holy  Orders  ;  and, 
joining  the  Nonjurors,  he  was  ordained  deacon  and  priest 
by  Collier.  He  is  said  to  have  found  employment  as 
librarian  to  Collier  in  London,  and  this  tallies  with  the 
fact  that  most  of  the  letters  sent  by  the  Nonjuring 
bishops  (of  whom  Collier  was  •  Primus ')  between  1716 
and  1725  to  the  Eastern  Patriarchs  were  '  done  into  Latin 
by  Mr.  Jebb.'  '  In  1726  Collier  died,  whereupon  Jebb, 
on  the  advice  of  the  famous  Dr.  Mead,  directed  his  atten- 
tion to  medicine  and  became  a  successful  physician  at 
Stratford-le-Bow.  He  was  also  a  good  classical  scholar 
and  a  diligent  writer  on  a  variety  of  subjects,  but  none  of 
his  writings  were  connected  with  the  Nonjuring  question. 

Sir  Richard  Jebb  (1729-89),  son  of  the  above,  was 
also  another  physician  who  was  a  Nonjuror,  and  in  con- 
sequence could  not  graduate  at  Oxford.  He  was  highly 
distinguished  in  1 1 is  profession. 

In  the  Legal  profession  the  first  Nonjuror  to  be  men- 
tioned  is  Hugh  Wynne,  fellow  of  All  Souls'  College, 
I  Ixford,  who  took  the  degree  of  B.C.L.in  1667 and  D.C.L. 

1  Bee  tli.-  in-  . ,  ,.  ,,f  t]lt,  1)1(.s,.,u  Bishop  of   Edinburgh  (Dr. 

/  Theological  Studies, vol. i., entitled  -Note  on 

the  Origin*]  Doetunenl    oontaining,  ox  relating  to,  the  Proposals  of  the 

Nonjuring    Bl   li"p    lor  a  "  Concordat.'  "  with  the   Holy  Orthodox  Church  ot 

11     inal  Dooumenl  i '  i  ontaina  the  Information  in 

■hoot  Dr.  Jebb.    The  notice  oi  J<  bb1  ■  ordination  in  the  Bawlinion 

MBB.ran   tho  :  '  1716,  July  25tb     \h.  Bamnel  Jebb,  B A.,  oi  Peterhouse 

ord.  d.  i.,  m,.  Bandy'    Chapel]  bj  Mr.  Colllej  [Wii 
Mi.  Laon  oi  i     Ohi  pi  I  bj  .Mr.  Collier1  [Witn< 


NONJURING   LAWYERS  269 

in  1672,  and  afterwards  became  Chancellor  of  the  Diocese 
of  St.  Asaph.  Dr.  Wynne  had  the  honour  of  being  the 
first  to  suffer  at  Oxford  for  conscience'  sake,  and  for  that 
reason  appears  to  have  been  an  object  of  great  interest  to 
Hearne.  He  lived  on  quietly  at  Oxford,  where  he  died  in 
the  parish  of  St.  Giles,  November  9,  1720.1  Another 
Nonjuring  lawyer  was  Eichard  Jones,  of  Jesus  College, 
Oxford,  who  took  his  B.C.L.  degree  in  1674  and  D.C.L. 
in  1679,  and  became  Chancellor  of  the  Dioceses  of  Bangor 
and  of  Llandaff.  A  third  is  described  as  '  Pearce  of  Took's 
Court,  a  well-known  Nonjuring  attorney  and  an  agent  for 
the  Nonjuring  party ' ;  but  however  '  well  known  '  he  may 
once  have  been,  he  appears  now  to  be  only  known  in  con- 
nection with  a  rather  ghastly  story.  He  is  said  to  have 
picked  up  the  head  of  Christopher  Layer,  the  Jacobite 
conspirator,  when  it  was  blown  down  from  Temple  Bar, 
and  to  have  sold  it  at  a  high  price  to  Dr.  Eawlinson,  but 
the  story  rests  on  slender  foundations.2 

A  fourth  and  far  more  distinguished  Nonjuring 
lawyer  was  Roger  North  (1653-1734),  youngest  son  of 
Dudley,  fourth  Lord  North.  In  1678  he  became,  on 
Sancroft's  appointment,  Steward  of  the  See  of  Canter- 
bury, and  legal  adviser  to  the  archbishop ;  in  1684 
Solicitor-General  to  James,  Duke  of  York ;  and  in  1686 
Attorney-General  to  the  Queen,  Mary  of  Modena.  At 
the  Revolution  he  did  not  desert  his  old  friends,  but 
became  a  Nonjuror  at  the  sacrifice  of  a  large  profes- 
sional income.  Like  so  many  Nonjurors  he  retired 
quietly  into  the  country,  and,  eschewing  politics,  lived 
for  thirty-five  years  at  Rougham  in  Norfolk  (still  the 
seat  of  his  descendants),    usefully   occupying   his  leisure 

1  See  Reliquia  Heamiance,  ii.  113-4,  and  Hearne's  Collections,  iii.  409. 

2  See  Doran's  London  in  tlie  Jacobite  Times,  i.  436 ;  Nichols's 
Literary  Anecdotes  of  tJw  Eighteenth  Century ;  and  article  on  Eawlinson 
in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 


270  THE  NONJURORS 

with  agriculture,  literary  pursuits,  and  music,  giving  his 
neighbour  the  benefit  of  his  legal  knowledge  when 
any  dispute  had  to  be  settled.  Like  Cherry,  he  is  an 
ice  of  the  cultured  country  gentleman.  His  valu- 
able writings  will  be  noticed  in  the  chapter  on  the 
general  literature  of  the  Nonjurors. 

Nonjuring  laymen  were  to  be  found  among  all  classes. 
James  Millington,  whose  munificence  founded  the  hospital 
.ind  charity  school  which  still  bear  his  name  at  Shrews- 
bury, was  a  draper  in  that  town,  and  died  in  1737.  The 
whole  family  of  Matthews,  printers  in  the  City  of  London, 
but  of  a  much  humbler  type  than  the  Bowyers,  were 
Nonjurors,  and  one  member  suffered  death  in  the  cause 
of  the  Stuarts.  Many  belonged  to  the  class  of  country 
gentry.  Among  those  who  were  taken  prisoners  in  the 
struggle  of  1715,  Patten  (who,  having  changed  sides,  has 
naturally  seldom  a  word  of  praise  for  any  of  his  old  party) 
speaks  very  highly  of  one  Robert  Cotton,  '  a  gentle- 
man of  very  good  fortune,  a  Nonjuror.'  '  This  is  pro- 
bably the  same  Robert  Cotton  whose  name  is  found  as 
a  witness  to  the  consecration  of  some  Nonjuring  bishops. 
Whether  he  was  a  relation  of  Sir  John  Hynde  Cotton, 
the  Jacobite  politician,  or  of  the  Sir  John  Cotton  who 
inherited  the  Cottonian  Library,  and  with  whom  Thomas 
Smith  found  a  home  as  already  described,1'  I  am  unable 
to  say.  Another  of  the  same  class  was  Ralph  Lowndes, 
m[  Lea  Hall,  Cheshire,  which  had  been  in  the  possession 
ol  the  family  for  some  generations.  His  name  has  be- 
Dome  very  familiar  to  ;ill  students  of  Nonjuring  literature 
bona  the  tact  that  his  '  Penitential  Declaration,'  in 
which   he   deolared   his    '  sincere   repentance   for   his    sin 

Rebellion,  bj  the  Be*.  Robert  Patten,  to 
L717),  pp.  1 19  BO. 

:     p.   1  Tli. 


NONJUEING  COUNTEY  GENTEY  271 

and  weakness  in  having  been  induced  by  the  general 
Example  of  men  of  reputed  Prudence  and  Integrity  '  to 
take  the  oath,  is  inserted  in  an  Appendix  to  Kettlewell's 
'Life.'  He  is  there  described  as  'Ralph  Lowndes  of 
Middlewich,  gentleman.'  There  was  another  Ealph 
Lowndes,  also  a  Cheshire  man,  the  rector  of  Eccleston, 
who  was  deprived  in  1690.  Whether  the  layman  and  the 
clergyman  were  related  is  not  known,  but  the  coincidence 
is  very  striking  if  they  were  not.1  Another  Cheshire 
gentleman,  who  is  said  by  Oldmixon  to  have  been  sent 
to  the  Tower  as  a  Nonjuring  member  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  was  Francis  Cholmondeley,  of  Vale  Eoyal,  in 
Cheshire.  He  was  at  any  rate  a  kind  friend  and  patron 
of  Nonjurors,  and  wrote  a  Latin  epitaph  on  a  monument 
which  he  erected  to  the  memory  of  John  Oakes,  deprived 
vicar  of  Whitegate,  in  Eccleston  Church,  which  could 
hardly  have  been  written  by  any  but  a  Nonjuror.2  The 
Cholmondeleys  were  a  sort  of  link  between  the  gentry  and 
the  nobility ;  so  we  naturally  pass  on  to  some  of  the  latter 
class,  who  were  either  Nonjurors  themselves  or,  at  least, 
friends  and  patrons  of  Nonjurors. 

Among  these  the  first  place  must,  of  course,  be 
assigned  to  the  one  who  was  nearest  the  throne,  Henry 
Hyde,  second  Earl  of  Clarendon  (1638-1709).  He  was 
certainly  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  term  '  a  Nonjuror,' 
for  he  persistently  declined  to  take  the  new  oaths  ;  but 
he  was  sorely  tried.  On  the  one  side  was  his  brother- 
in-law,  James  II.,  to  whom  he  owed  no  obligation  from 
the  time — one  might,  indeed,  say  from  before  the  time — 
when  James  had  married  his  sister;  on  the  other  side 
were  his  own  nieces,  Mary  and  Anne,  to  whom  he  was 
always  attached.      He  was,  like  his  father,   a   thorough 

1  See  The  Cheshire  SJieaf,  No.  80,  for  August  1896. 
"  Ibid.    No.  84,  where  the  epitaph  is  given  in  full. 


272  THE   NONJURORS 

Church  of  England  man,  and  therefore  quite  as  much 
opposed  to  the  Romanism  of  James  as  to  the  latitudina- 
rxanism  of  William  ;  and  the  new  type  of  Ohurchmanship 
of  Tillotson  and  Burnet  was  very  unlike  that  wherein 
he  had  been  brought  up.  His  '  Diary '  gives  us  a  most 
graphic  account  of  the  crisis  which  led  to  the  Non- 
juring  separation.  If  Hearne  is  to  be  trusted,  his  end 
was  very  sad  :  '  He  almost  wanted  bread  to  eat.' l 

Thomas  Thymie,  first  Viscount  Weymouth  (1640-1714), 
though  not  a  Nonjuror  himself,  is  closely  identified  with 
the  party,  owing  chiefly,  but  not  solely,  to  his  connection 
with  Bishop  Ken.  His  career  was  rather  a  peculiar  one, 
for  he  was  actually  one  of  the  four  lords  sent  to  convey 
the  invitation,  drawn  up  at  the  memorable  Guildhall 
meeting  in  1688,  to  the  Prince  of  Orange  to  come  over 
and  undertake  the  government ;  but  he  was  in  favour  of 
the  Regency  scheme,  and  never  cordially  accepted  William 
and  Mary  as  his  sovereigns.  Indeed,  until  the  accession 
of  Queen  Anne  the  '  characteristick '  prayers  do  not 
appear  to  have  been  used  in  his  private  chapel  at  Long- 
leat,  where  a  Nonjuring  chaplain  always  officiated.  His 
early  training  was  of  a  kind  to  make  him  a  strong  Church- 
man. As  nephew  of  Dorothy,  Lady  Pakington,  hi 
brought  into  contact  with  the  old  Church  and  Royalist 
traditions  of  Westwood ;  he  was  educated  at  Christ 
( Inarch,  Oxford,  under  the  direction  of  Fell  and  Hammond, 
and  his  ondergradoate  friends  were  evidently  the  Church 
Bet,  for  it  was  at  Oxford  that  he  commenced  his  life-long 
friendship  with  Ken,  then  an  undergraduate  at  New  Col- 
I  lis  marriage  with  Lady  Frances  Finch,  daughter  of 
ond  Bar!  of  Winohilsea,  would  tend  to  strengthen 
tin-  impressions  previously  made.  His  tastes  were  theo- 
logical,  and   the   important    additions   he   made    to    the 

'  Collections,  ii.  297. 


NONJUBING  NOBLEMEN  273 

splendid  library  at  Longleat  consist  chiefly  of  theological 
works.  Two  successive  chaplains  at  Longleat,  Eobert 
Jenkin  and  George  Harbin,  were  strong  men,  and  would 
be  sure  to  make  their  influence  felt ;  and  then,  to  crown 
all,  there  was  Thomas  Ken,  his  honoured  guest  for  nearly 
twenty  years.  Lord  Weymouth  always  treated  Ken 
with  the  greatest  hospitality,  consideration,  and  kindness, 
allowing  him  an  annuity  of  801.  for  the  capital  sum  of 
7001.,  which  was  all  that  the  deprived  prelate  possessed, 
and  assigning  him  apartments  of  his  own  at  Longleat. 
It  was  rather  a  trouble  to  the  good  bishop  when,  on  the 
accession  of  Queen  Anne,  prayers  for  the  reigning  Sove- 
reign began  to  be  used  in  Longleat  Chapel.  '  I  shall 
spend  this  summer,'  he  writes  to  Bishop  Lloyd,  '  God 
willing,  most  at  Longleat,  though  I  am  now  very  uneasy 
there ;  not  but  that  my  Lord  is  extremely  kind  to  me,  but 
because  I  cannot  go  to  prayers  there,  by  reason  of  the 
late  alteration,  which  is  no  small  affliction  to  me.' x  But 
Ken's  attachment  to  his  patron  remained  unbroken  to 
the  end,  and  some  years  after  his  complaint  of  uneasiness 
at  Longleat  he  compared  his  happy  retreat  there  to  that 
of  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  in  the  touching  Dedication  of 
the  first  volume  of  his  poems  to  Lord  Weymouth  : 

When  I,  my  Lord,  crush'd  by  prevailing  Might, 

No  cottage  had  where  to  direct  my  Flight ; 

Kind  Heav'n  me  with  a  Friend  Illustrious  blest, 

Who  gives  me  Shelter,  Affluence,  and  Best ; 

In  this  alone  I  Gregory  outdo, 

That  I  much  happier  Befuge  have  in  you ; 

Where  to  my  Closet  I  to  Hymn  retire, 

On  this  side  Heav'n  have  nothing  to  desire. 

I  the  small  dol'rous  Bemnant  of  my  Days, 
Devote  to  hymn  my  great  Bedeemer's  Praise ; 

1  See  Plumptre's  Life  of  Ken,  ii.  124. 


274  THE  NONJURORS 

I,  nearer  as  I  draw  towards  Heavenly  Rest, 
The  more  I  love  th'  Employment  of  the  blest. 
In  that  Employment  while  my  Hours  I  spend, 
This  Prayer  I  offer  for  my  Noble  Friend, 
Whose  shades  benign  to  sacred  Songs  invite, 
Who  to  those  Songs  may  claim  Paternal  Right : 
Rich  as  He  is  in  all  good  Works  below, 
May  He  in  Heav'nly  Treasure  overflow  ! 

The  last  line  but  one  reminds  us  that  there  were  others 
besides  Ken  who  were  under  obligations  to  Lord 
Weymouth.  We  have  already  seen  how  he  sent  1001.  to 
Hilkiah  Bedford  when  he  was  fined  and  imprisoned ; 
Hearne  always  writes  as  if  Nonjurors  would  be  sure  of 
finding  a  friend  in  Lord  Weymouth,  and,  indeed,  expresses 
his  personal  obligations  to  him ; *  and  he  joined  with 
Robert  Nelson  in  actively  promoting  the  scheme  of 
charity  schools. 

But  Lord  Weymouth's  connection  by  marriage, 
Heneage  Finch,  fourth  Earl  of  Winchilsea,  though  he  is 
less  known  as  a  friend  of  Nonjurors,  identified  himself 
more  closely  with  them  than  Lord  Weymouth  ever  did. 
Wo  find  his  name  as  an  attesting  witness  at  the  con- 
secration of  more  than  one  Nonjuring  bishop  ;  he  supplied, 
as  we  have  seen,  a  home  for  one  of  them,  Samuel  Hawes, 
after  he  was  deprived  of  the  living  of  Braybrooke ;  and 
Hearne  distinctly  calls  him,  as  he  never  calls  Lord 
Weymouth,  a  Nonjuror.2  He  died  at  Eastwell,  his  seat 
in  Kent,  September  30,  1720;  and  in  the  Neircastlr 
Courant  appeared  an  obituary  notice,  supposed  to  have 
been  written  by  Mr.  Harbin,  in  which  it  is  said  : 

Above  all,  he  is  to  be  valued  lor  the  noble  example  he  ha 
given  tin-  w.nid  by  a  Life  eminently  conformable  to  the  Btriotesl 

GoUwtfoiw,  Hi.  no,  468. 
ni.  I-J7.    '  A  vary  honest  Worthy  Nonjuror  toy*  groat  joy  and 

tter  .' 


OTHEE  LAY  SYMPATHISEES  275 

rules  of  honour  and  religion.  At  the  time  of  the  Eevolution, 
being  Gentleman  of  the  Bedchamber  and  a  Colonel  of  the  Guard 
to  King  James  II.,  he  was  one  of  those  resolute  gentlemen 
that  could  not  be  persuaded  that  his  Loyalty  ought  to  terminate 
with  his  Prince's  prosperity,  and  therefore  chose  to  deny  him- 
self all  those  advantages  in  Life,  which  his  Birth,  his  great 
Virtues  and  many  excellent  qualities,  intitled  him  unto,  rather 
than  abate  any  of  that  constancy  and  fidelity  which  he  thought 
it  became  him  to  maintain  to  the  last  period  of  his  life. 

His  wife,  who  died  in  1720,  was  a  kindred  spirit. 

There  were  other  noblemen  who  were  more  or  less 
connected  with  the  Nonjurors.  The  Earl  of  Exeter 
received  into  his  family  as  domestic  chaplain  Eobert 
Jenkin  after  he  was  ejected  from  his  preferments  in  1690 
and  before  he  went  to  Longleat ; *  John  Oakes,  the  ejected 
vicar  of  Whitegate,  Cheshire,  went  from  Vale  Royal  to 
Eaton  Hall,  the  seat  of  the  Grosvenors,  where  he  stayed 
until  his  death.2  If  Jacobite  and  Nonjuror  were  con- 
vertible terms  (which  they  are  not)  something  would  also 
have  to  be  said  about  James,  second  Duke  of  Ormonde, 
who  was  the  head  of  the  Jacobites  ;  but,  though  he  was 
a  staunch  Church  of  England  man,  he  does  not  appear 
to  have  had  much  connection  with  the  Nonjurors. 

There  were  several  other  distinguished  laymen  who 
were  in  strong  sympathy  with  the  party,  though  they 
were  not  actual  Nonjurors  in  the  sense  in  which  the  term 
is  used  in  this  work.  The  two  famous  diarists,  Samuel 
Pepys  and  John  Evelyn,  come  under  this  head.  Pepys 
quietly  retired  into  private  life  when  James  II.  lost  his 
crown ;  and  when  he  felt  that  he  was  nearing  his  end, 
and  required  spiritual  ministration,  would  have  none  but 
Nonjuring  clergy  to  minister  to  him ;  so  he  applied  to 

1  History  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  by  T.    Baker,  edited  by 
J.  E.  B.  Mayor,  p.  998. 

2  See  The  Cheshire  Sheaf,  No.  84,  p.  75. 


276  THE  NONJURORS 

Bobert  Nelson,  who  recommended  Nathanael  Spinckes  ; 
and  Spinckes  became  his  spiritual  adviser.  He  received  his 
last  viaticum  from  Hickes,  who  also  officiated  at  his  funeral 
in  Crutchcd  Friars  Church  (St.  Olave's,Hart  Street),  whither 
his  corpse  was  removed  fromClapham  in  1703.  John  Evelyn 
had  evidently  strong  sympathy  with  the  'deprived  Fathers,' 
with  some  of  whom  he  was  on  terms  of  great  intimacy  ; 
and  he  was  so  far  dissatisfied  with  the  Eevolution  that  he 
henceforth  lived  like  Pepys  in  greater  retirement ;  but  he 
was  not  properly  speaking  a  Nonjuror.  Anthony  Wood, 
the  antiquary,  tells  us  that  '  people  said  he  was  a  Jacobite 
and  favoured  the  Nonjurors,' '  and  there  were  certainly 
some  grounds  for  the  impeachment,  but  he  was  never  re- 
cognised by  the  Nonjurors  proper  as  one  of  their  body. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  dwelling  on  such  doubtful  cases 
it  will  be  better  to  conclude  this  chapter  with  some  ex- 
tracts from  a  letter  among  the  Kawlinson  MSS.,  which 
illustrates  vividly  the  anomalous  position  in  which  a  Non- 
juring  layman  sometimes  found  himself.  The  name  and 
address  of  the  writer  are  given  in  full,  but  have  been  so 
carefully  obliterated  that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  decipher 
them.     The  letter  runs  as  follows  : 

To  my  neighbours  the  inhabitants  of  the  parish  of  [illegible] 
and  to  my  friends  and  acquaintance  elsewhere,  if  any  such 
shall  happen  to  read  these  papers. 

I  BUppose  it  is  by  this  time  known  to  most  of  you  that  arc: 
inhabitants  of  the  parish  of  [illegible]  that  I  have  left  the  Parish 
Church  beoause  1  was  wont  to  meet  you  there  heretofore  with 
soino  degree  of  constancy,  but  now  have  been  absent  about 
months,  from  which  it  seems  you  have  taken  the  freedom 
bo   ball    what  yon   pleas'd,  hut   very   variously  concerning   me, 

aying  that  I  have  become  a  papist,  others  s  quaker  and 

others  that  I  absent  myself  to  avoid  praying  for 

EL  W.  and  the  parliament,  nay  some  by  their  malice  have  been 

fit  and  Tim*  (Oxf.  Hist.  Boo.),  UL  898. 


LETTEK  OF  A   NONJUEING  LAYMAN  277 

carried  so  far  as  to  insinuate  that  I  was  privy  to  the  late  plot.' 
Others,  more  favourable,  wonder  that  so  constant  a  frequenter 
of  the  Church  (as  they  now  please  to  account  me)  should  at  last 
quite  forsake  her,  these  aspersions,  together  with  mine  own 
inclination  to  satisfie  my  friends,  made  me  soon  resolve  to 
offer  something  in  mine  own  vindication,  which  I  had  done 
long  agoe  but  that  by  a  bodily  indisposition  I  was  hinder'd  from 
this  performance. 

Then,  after  saying  how  cruel  it  was  to  accuse  him  of 
being  a  papist,  which  would  expose  him  to  the  fury  of 
the  mob : 

If  you  will  needs  have  me  to  be  a  papist,  and  there  is  no 
help  for  it,  I  must  tell  you  that  I  am  such  a  papist  as  disowns 
the  Pope's  supremacy  over  the  Catholick  Church,  such  a  papist 
as  disbelieves  his  infallibility  both  in  and  out  of  a  general 
Council,  such  a  papist  as  disbelieves  the  corporall  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  such  a  papist  as  cannot  worship 
images,  such  a  papist  as  abhorres  divine  service  in  a  tongue 
unknown  to  the  congregation,  and  if  you  will  have  any  more, 
such  a  papist  as  detests  one  part  of  popery  which  is  the 
deposing  doctrine  that  many  of  you  most  zealously  defend,  tho' 
our  divines  used  to  tell  us  it  was  one  of  the  most  odious  parts 
of  popery. 

As  much  a  papist  as  I  am  reputed  to  be,  ...  I  declare  that 
I  am  (notwithstanding  my  leaving  the  publick  places  of  worship) 
as  much  a  protestant  as  ever,  as  much  a  Church  of  England 
man  as  ever,  as  much  as  any  of  you. 

Then  as  to  my  being  accounted  a  quaker  or  fanatick,  or 
the  like,  I  suppose  I  need  not  make  any  defence,  because  a  man 
may  be  of  any  religion  or  of  none  if  he  please  so  that  he  be  not 
a  papist.  I  say  that  he  may  be  now-a-days  of  any  religion  but 
a  papist,  except  it  be  a  thing  called  a  Jacobite,  which  is  accounted 
somewhat  worse 

I  hope  I  shall  make  it  pretty  plain  to  you  that  I  have  not 
left  the  Church  tho'  I  come  not  to  the  usuall  place  of  worship. 
The  Church,  I  suppose,  is  not  confined  to  any  particular  place. 
The  Church,  I  believe,  remains  with,  or  in  the  Bishops  that 
adhere  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  notwithstanding  their 
illegall  or  invalid  deprivation,  which  is  of  no  force  to  dissolve 
1  The  Preston  Plot. 


J 


278  THE   NONJURORS 

!  ktion  between  them  and  their  flocks,  for  I  cannot  for  my 
life  conceive  how  the  children  can  deprive  their  fathers,  the 
9heep  their  shepherds,  or  the  subjects  their  superiors  in  any 
ecclesiastical  or  civil  society. 

Some  of  you  may  think  that  I  am  possest  with  a  belief  of 
King  James'  return,  and  if  that  should  happen  I  may  hope  for 
preferment  under  him  [the  return  is  unlikely],  but  if  I  were  sure 
it  would  be  so  yet  that  would  not  justify  me  in  leaving  your 
communion.  There  is  something  else  to  bar  me,  as  you  shall 
know  by  and  by.  .  .  . 

But  suppose  it  should  be  granted  that  I  do  desire  the  King's 
return,  what  advantage  shall  I  make  by  it  ?  You  know  that  I 
am  neither  courtier  nor  soldier  nor  anything  else  that  I  know 
of  whereby  to  deserve  any  favour  of  the  King.  ...  If  I  had  a 
revelation  from  heaven  that  the  King  will  never  be  restored, 
yet  I  should  be  what  now  I  am  in  matters  relating  to  worship. 

It  is  very  plain  that  the  Church  is  divided  ;  it  is  too  evident 
there  is  a  schism  among  us ;  I  mean  in  the  Church  of  England  : 
her  bishops  are  divided,  her  priests  are  divided,  her  people  are 
divided,  one  part  going  one  way,  and  the  other  another  .  .  . 
both  parties  call  each  other  schismatics  to  the  great  scandall 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  particular,  and  of  the  Christian 
religion  in  general. 

He  then  puts  forcibly  and  racily  the  usual  arguments 
to  show  that  the  parties  who  change  are  those  who  make 
the  schism,  and  that  lay  deprivations  are  invalid,  and 
proceeds : 

Tho'  I  happen  to  be  singular  in  the  parish  where  I  live,  yet 
me  many  in  other  places,  I  think  I  may  say  in  all  parts  of 
the  nation  of  my  opinion. 

Our  deprived  clergy  are  known  to  be  well  studied,  men  of 
great  abilities  and  depth  of  learning,  and  not  only  so,  but  for 
the  honour  of  our  cause  are  men  of  extraordinary  piety  and 
integrity,  bo  that  their  adversaries  cannot  but  speak  in  their 

in. mi  of  undaunted  courage,  unshaken  constancy,  steady 

•ids  to  their  old  principles,  linn  to  thai  anoienl  doctrine 
"f  bheOhuroh  of  England  which  they  and  their  professed  adver- 
I  to  be  brae. 

[As     to     their     adversaries      how     shall    we   reconcile    their 

dootrinee  in  the  late  reigns  with  their  praotioe  ainc 


LETTEE  OF  A  NONJUEING  LAYMAN  279 

Some  may  say  I  have  nothing  or  little  to  lose.  .  .  .  Yet  my 
ancestors  had  a  plentifull  estate,  not  only  as  good  as  any  in  the 
parish,  but  the  best  by  far,  except  the  rectory  and  the  mannors, 
but  the  zeal  of  those  pure  times  in  which  they  lived  eat  [sic]  up 
a  great  part  thereof,  else  it  might  have  been  preserved  entire  till 
my  time,  it  was  their  fault,  it  seems,  to  be  firm  to  the  King's 
interest,  they  were  (as  the  great  Sherlock  is  pleas'd  to  shew) 
men  of  stupid  and  slavish  loyalty.  .  .  . 

...  It  has  been  easy  to  observe  since  I  left  you,  how  your 
carriage  towards  me  has  changed,  some,  when  they  meet  me, 
refusing  to  open  their  lips,  others  looking  another  way  that 
they  might  avoid  speaking,  others  seeming  not  to  see  me,  others 
gazing  rudely  on  me  as  if  I  were  some  monster.  .  .  . 

I  cannot  but  be  persuaded  that  right  is  right  notwithstand- 
ing want  of  success,  and  all  other  discouragements  it  may  meet 
with,  and  that  wrong  is  wrong,  tho'  it  be  never  so  prosperous 
and  successfull,  nor  can  I  like  any  cause  the  better  for  having 
a  multitude  on  its  side,  or  the  worse  for  being  countenanced  by 
a  few. 

But  if  the  worship  at  the  Parish  Church  be  sinfull,  why  did 
I  not  leave  it  sooner,  but  continue  to  join  in  it  three  or  four 
years  after  it  became  sinfull  ?  I  answer,  when  any  doubt 
arises  on  religious  matters,  nothing  should  be  resolv'd  upon 
rashly.  It  was  some  years  before  works  justifying  our  deprived 
fathers  came  into  my  hands.  That  I  was  unfixt  long  before  is 
known,  particularly  to  the  minister  of  our  parish. 

Now  if  after  all  that  I  have  said  any  of  you  shall  charge  me 
with  leaving  the  religion  of  the  Church  of  England,  I  do  here 
solemnly  profess  that  I  have  not  left  it,  but  what  I  have  done 
proceeds  from  a  steadfastness  in  the  doctrine  and  communion 
of  it,  and  if  this  be  not  sufficient,  I  challenge  you  and  all  the 
world  besides  to  prove  that  I  have  departed  in  any,  the  least 
instance  from  her  ancient  doctrine,  and  that  is  more  than  you 
that  railed  at  the  deprived  can  say  for  yourselves  tho'  you  go 
never  so  constantly  to  the  publick  worship. 

[Signature  in  full,  but  carefully  erased.] 

Aug.  ye  10th  1696. 

Then  follows  a  postscript  describing  a  Jacobite,  in 
which  the  writer  clearly  intimates  that  he  is  one  himself. 


THE  NONJURORS 


CHAPTEK  VI 

NONJURING  MODES  OF  WORSHIP 

The  principles  of  the  Nonjurors  of  course  led  them  to 
attach  the  deepest  importance  to  the  details  of  public 
worship,  and  their  internal  disputes  about  these  details 
more  than  anything  else  led  to  their  decay  and  downfall  ; 
for  a  small  community  quite  at  variance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  age  cannot  afford  to  have  disputes  among  its  own 
members,  and  that  was  just  what  the  Nonjurors  had. 
From  the  first  there  were  differences  among  them  con- 
nected directly  or  indirectly  with  public  worship.  All 
thought  that  at  the  Revolution  it  was  unlawful  to  take  the 
new  oaths ;  but  then  another  question  immediately  arose. 
Was  it  necessary  that  because  they  differed  from  their 
fellow  Churchmen  upon  a  political  point  they  should  hold 
aloof  from  common  worship  with  them  ?  Even  their 
leaders,  the  deprived  Fathers,  were  not  all  of  one  mind  on 
this  question.  Archbishop  Sancroft,  when  asked  by  some 
who  worshipped  at  Lambeth  Chapel  in  the  interval 
between  his  suspension  and  deprivation  whether  they 
might  attend  the  services  of  the  Established  Church, 
replied  that  'if  they  did,  they  would  need  Absolution 
at  the  end,  as  well  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  service ; ' 
und  he  himself  acted  consistently  with  this  principle; 
for,  after  his  retreat  to  Fressingfield,  he  wrote  (Decem- 
ber 23,  1691):  'I  constantly  officiate  myself  secundum 
mum  Lambethenum,  and  never  give  the  Boly  Sacramenl 
but  to  those  of  my  own  persuasion  and  practice;'1  und 
1  D'Oyij's  :,;/,•  of  8anoroft,  ii.  19. 


ATTENDANCE  AT  PAEISH   CHUECHES        281 

he  never  attended  the  parish  church,  though  the  clergy- 
man of  the  parish  frequently  visited  him.1  Bishop 
Frampton,  on  the  other  hand,  regularly  '  went  to  the 
public  prayers  of  the  Church  '  at  Standish,  in  spite  of  the 
expostulations  of  Mr.  Dodwell.2  Other  Nonjurors  followed 
Frampton's  example,  and  this  drew  from  Jeremy  Collier 
a  stirring  and  spirited  appeal,  entitled  in  brief  '  A  Per- 
suasive to  Eoyalists.' 3  Mr.,  afterwards  Bishop,  Hawes 
wrote  on  the  same  subject  advocating  the  same  line.4 
Two  of  the  most  highly  and  universally  respected  of  all 
the  later  Nonjurors,  Thomas  Baker  and  William  Law, 
always  attended  the  national  worship,  and  Charles  Leslie, 
when  there  was  no  Nonjuring  service  at  hand,  went  with 
his  family  to  the  parish  church.5 

The  Nonjurors,  however,  as  a  rule  much  preferred 
services  of  their  own,  and  the  majority  of  them  would 
attend  no  others.  To  discover,  therefore,  the  various 
Nonjuring  places  of  worship,  which  they  sometimes  called 
'oratories,'  sometimes  'chapels,'  is  an  interesting  task, 
but  at  the  same  time  a  most  difficult  one.  For  necessity 
compelled  them  to  keep  their  places  of  meeting  secret ; 
they  were  liable  at  any  moment  to  be  interrupted,  to  have 
the  oaths  tendered  to  them,  and,  if  they  refused  them,  as 
of  course  they  would,  to  be  hurried  off  to  prison.  It  was, 
therefore,  adding  insult  to  injury  to  taunt  them  contemptu- 
ously with  the  secrecy  of  their  worship,  for  they  could  not 
help  themselves.     The  poet  laureate  himself  (N.  Bowe) 

1  Lathbury's  History  of  tlie  Nonjurors,  p.  100. 

2  See  Life  of  Bishop  Frampton,  edited  by  Simpson  Evans,  p.  203. 

3  The  full  title  is,  A  Persuasive  to  Consideration  Tendered  to  the 
Eoyalists,  particularly  those  of  the  Church  of  England.  Second  Edition. 
1695. 

4  Considerations — What  a  Christian  is  to  do  who  goes  into  a  country  or 
place  ivhere  the  Clergy  is  unwarrantable  or  the  Worship  Corrupt,  or  both  ? 
by  Rev.  Mr.  Samuel  Hawes,  among  the  Rawlinson  MSS. 

s  See  R.  J.  Leslie's  Life  of  Charles  Leslie,  p.  231. 


282  THE  NONJURORS 

in  his  Prologue  to  Colley  Cibber's  play,  '  The  Nonjuror,' 

complains  that : 

Each  lurking  pastor  seeks  the  dark, 
And  fears  the  Justices'  inquiring  clerk. 
In  close  back  rooms  his  routed  flocks  he  rallies 
And  reigns  the  patriarch  of  blind  lanes  and  alleys. 
There  safe  he  lets  his  thundering  censures  fly,  j 
Unchristians,  damns  us,  gives  our  laws  the  lie  !■ 
And  excommunicates  three  stories  high.  j 

What  may  be  fairly  called  the  first  Nonjuring  places 
of  worship  were  the  private  chapels  of  the  two  Nonjuring 
prelates,  Sancroft  and  Turner,  at  Lambeth  and  Ely  House 
respectively.  The  services  at  Ely  House  in  especial  attracted 
much  attention  and  aroused  alarm.  Bishop  Turner  used 
to  officiate  there  every  Sunday  in  his  robes  even  after  his 
deprivation  ;  (it  will  be  remembered  that  the  sees  were 
not  filled  up  till  a  year  later,  so  the  chapel  was  vacant). 
His  ministry  was  attended  by  so  large  a  congregation  that 
the  new  sovereigns  were  highly  displeased,  and  the  Bishop 
of  St.  Asaph  (Dr.  Lloyd),  who  still  kept  up  his  friendship 
with  his  brother  confessors  in  the  Tower,  though  they 
took  different  roads  at  the  Revolution,  was  commissioned 
to  tell  him  that  he  must  shut  the  chapel  up  ;  but  it  was 
not  until  Turner  had  received  a  second  intimation  of  the 
danger  he  incurred  that  he  reluctantly  consented  to  do  so. 
Lord  Clarendon  was  a  regular  worshipper  at  Ely  House 
Chapel.  When  Sancroft  left  Lambeth  the  chapel  there, 
■  if  cm isc,  ceased  to  be  available. 

But  in  London,  at  any  rate,  Nonjuring  places  of 
tup  abounded  for  many  years.  Bishop  Nicolson, 
of  Carlisle,  writes  in  great  alarm  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  (Wake)  on  September  20,  L716,  declaring, 
unong  other  things,  that  there  were  fifty  churches  of 
Nonjurors    in    London.1    This    is    probably    either    an 

'  St i  :. lhs'..  Original  Litters,  Beriea  iii. 


NONJURING  ORATORIES  IN  LONDON         283 

exaggeration,  or  else  it  includes  private  houses  where  few, 
if  any,  besides  the  family  worshipped ;  but  still  there  is 
evidence  enough  of  the  existence  of  many  chapels  or 
oratories  in  the  metropolis.  One  of  the  most  noted  was 
in  Scroop's  Court,  afterwards  Union  Court,  near  St. 
Andrew's  Church,  Holborn,  where  Hickes,  Gandy  and 
Grascome  successively  officiated.  Another  was  on  College 
Hill,  where  Eoger  Laurence,  afterwards  a  bishop,  was 
minister ;  another  called  Trinity  Chapel,  in  the  parish  of 
St.  Botolph  Without,  Aldersgate,  where  first  Eobert  Orme 
officiated,  and  afterwards  John  Lindsay  '  until  his  death 
in  1768,'  so  that  this  must  have  been  one  of  the  last 
remaining  chapels  of  the  Nonjurors  in  London  ;  another 
in  an  '  upper  room  '  in  Broad  Street,  where  Jeremy  Collier, 
assisted  sometimes  by  Samuel  Carte,  used  to  officiate  ; 
another  in  '  the  Savoy ' ;  another  in  Spitalfields,  which 
is  called  the  oratory  of  William  Lee,  dyer,  brother  of 
Francis  Lee,  the  opening  of  which  in  1716  caused  a  riot  ;l 
another  in  Gray's  Inn,  where  Kichard  Kawlinson  and 
John  Blackbourne  officiated,  and  where  several  ordinations 
took  place  ;  another  in  Goodman's  Fields,  in  the  parish 
of  Whitechapel,  where  Welton,  ex-rector  of  Whitechapel, 
was  minister ;  this  must  have  been  a  large  building,  for 
when  it  was  invaded  by  the  civil  authority  in  1717,  two 
hundred  and  fifty  persons  were  assembled  there ;  another 
in  '  Bedford  Court,  Holbourne,'  where  Matthias  Earbery 
was  minister  ;  another  in  Fetter  Lane,  about  which  more 
will  be  said  presently  ;  another  perhaps  in  Great  Ormond 
Street,  for  Kalph  Thoresby  speaks  of  visiting  Nelson  and 
Hickes  there  and  finding  Hickes  at  '  the  Nonjuring  Con- 
venticle,' though  it  has  been  suggested  that  '  probably 
the  Conventicle  was  at  one  of  their  houses  ;  ' 2  another  in 

1  See  London  in  the  Jacobite  Times,  i.  269. 

-  See  Notes  and  Queries,  Series  i.  vol.  ii.  No.  52,  October  26,  1850. 


384  THE  NONJURORS 

Dunstan  Court,  Fleet  Street,  where  a  Dr.  Bryan1  is  said 
to  have  officiated  ;  and  one  in  or  near  Theobald's  Road, 
where  Bishop  Gordon  ministered  to  the  very  last  Non- 
juring  congregation  of  the  regular  line  in  London.  These 
fall  very  far  short  of  Bishop  Nicolson's  fifty,  but  they 
are  enough  to  show  that  Nonjuring  chapels  were  pretty 
numerous  in  London ;  and  it  may  fairly  be  presumed 
that  there  were  more  than  those  mentioned,  for  the  chief 
reason  why  we  know  anything  about  these  is  because 
their  ministers  were  more  or  less  well-known  men.  It  is 
in  every  case  the  man  who  brings  note  to  the  oratory, 
not  the  oratory  to  the  man  ;  when  the  minister  of  an 
oratory  was  not  known,  the  oratory  would  not  be. 

We  cannot,  however,  argue  from  London  to  the 
country.  Nathanael  Marshall,  in  his  '  Defence  of  our 
Constitution  in  Church  and  State'  (p.  170),  remarks  that 
the  chief  efforts  of  the  Nonjurors  were  confined  to  London, 
and  the  preceding  pages  sufficiently  show  how  the  party 
tended  to  gravitate  to  the  metropolis  as  a  centre.  It 
appears  also  that  Nonjurors  used  to  come  up  to  London 
on  great  festivals  to  attend  services  which  they  could  not 
have  in  the  country.  This  point  is  illustrated  in  a  curious 
'Dialogue,'  published  in  1756,  but  probably  applicable 
with  still  greater  force  to  an  earlier  period  when  the 
Nonjurors  were  a  less  minute  and  more  flourishing 
community.  If  the  writer  was,  as  is  conjectured,  John 
Lindsay,  the  pamphlet  is  of  more  value  as  coming  from 
an  eminent  and  responsible  person.  At  any  rate  it  is 
worth  quoting  as  illustrative  of  the  attitude  of  the  Non- 
jurors towards  public  worship.  It  is  entitled  '  The  Grand 
ami  Ini].,,it;iiii  Question  about  the  Church  ami  Parochial 
Communion,  Fairly  and   Friendly  debated  in  a  Dialogue 

1  Qy-— Matthew  Bryan,  tormerlj  reotox  ol  Limington,  Somerset? 


DIALOGUE  ON  PUBLIC  WOESHIP  285 

between  a  worthy  Country  Gentleman  and  his  Neighbour 
newly  returned  from  London,'  and  runs  : 

C.  G.  Welcome  home,  Neighbour?  What  news  do  you 
bring  from  London  ? 

N.  News,  Sir  !  I  met  with  none ;  being  otherways  better 
employed  while  I  stayed  there. 

C.  G.  Seeing  you  set  out  so  early  yesterday  morning,  I  did 
not  doubt  but  some  extraordinary  business  called  you  abroad 
on  such  a  solemn  day  as  Easter  Sunday. 

N.  It  was  indeed  the  Business  of  the  Day  that  called  me  to 
London,  which,  I  thank  God,  I  have  despatched  to  my  great 
comfort  and  satisfaction. 

C.  G.  I  always  understood  the  proper  Business  of  such  a 
Day  to  be  the  Service  of  God,  and  particularly  at  the  Church  ; 
which  (you  will  give  me  leave  to  say)  seems  hardly  consistent 
with  a  London  journey  of  so  many  miles. 

N.  .  .  .  The  only  business  and  occasion  of  my  going 
yesterday  was  in  order  to  God's  Service  in  the  Church ; 
which  I  would  never  neglect,  on  the  more  solemn  Festi- 
vals, at  least,  tho'  Providence  has  now  placed  me  where  I 
am  not  in  a  Capacity  of  attending  it  so  frequently  and  con- 
stantly as  would  be  most  agreeable  both  to  my  inclination 
and  duty.  .  .  . 

C.  G.  I  suppose  then,  Sir,  you  are  so  zealously  affected 
with  the  solemn  Choir  Service  at  St.  Paul's  or  Westminster- 
Abbey  that  you  cannot  relish  the  plain  service  at  a  Country 
Church.  For  I  do  not  remember  to  have  ever  seen  you  at  our 
Parish  Church,  which  has  made  many  of  us  conclude  you  are 
not  a  member  of  the  established  Church  of  England. 

N.  I  assure  you,  Sir,  it  is  far  otherwise.  I  really  am,  and 
trust  in  God  to  enable  me  steadfastly  to  continue  a  member  of 
the  Established  Church  of  England,  as  it  was  happily  reformed 
from  the  errors  of  Popery,  and  distinguished  in  Doctrine  by  her 
39  Articles  and  Homilies,  in  Discipline  by  her  Canons,  and  in 
worship  according  to  her  Liturgy  or  Common  Prayer,  maturely 
settled  by  Church  Eepresentation  in  Convocation  in  1661,  and 
enforced  by  the  temporal  Sanction  of  the  Laws  of  the  Land  in 
the  Act  of  Uniformity. 

C.  G.  .  .  .  I  hope  we  may  cement  our  friendship  by  going 
together  to  worship  the  Lord  in  the  Beauty  of  Holiness. 

N.  With  all  my  Heart,  if  you  are  stedfastly  attached  (as 


386  THE  NONJURORS 

I  am)  to  the  Church  of  England,  so  reformed  and  established, 
as  I  have  before  denned  it. 

C.  G.  I  know  not  why  you  should  doubt  of  that,  since  no 
man  in  the  parish  is  more  constant  at  our  Parish  Church.  .  .  . 
And  the  Vicar  of  our  Parish  is  as  eminent  and  exemplary,  in 
all  the  requisites  of  his  sacred  office  as  any  in  the  Diocese. 

Then  follow  the  usual  arguments  on  both  sides,  which 
need  not  be  repeated. 

As  to  the  services  held  at  the  Nonjuring  chapels,  it 
goes  without  saying  that  they  were  strictly  in  accordance 
with  the  order  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  names  of 
the  Sovereign  and  Royal  Family  prayed  for  being  omitted. 
The  writer  of  a  squib  entitled  '  A  Jacobite  Conventicle  ' 
(1092)  describes  how  he  dogged  the  steps  of  a  'moody 
Jacobite  '  to  the  place  of  rendezvous,  and  then  proceeds : 

But  hold — Before  to  Fetter  Lane  I  go 
Tis  requisite  the  entrance  word  I  know ; 
Last  Sunday  'twas  commandement  the  fifth, 
And  now  St.  Germains  is  the  Shibboleth. 
'Tis  so, — and  now  with  eager  steps  I  fly 
To  the  true  Church  of  England's  ministry 
To  hear  a  sort  of  men  who  ever  knew 
Still  to  be  faithful,  loyal,  firm  and  true, 
Who  for  their  souls  detest  the  swearing  vice, 
Either  to  get  or  keep  a  benefice. 

I  sate  me  down  upon  a  hassock, 
Expecting  clergyman  in  cassock,  &0.  &o. 

Before  the  clergyman  comes  all  talk  politics.  The  room 
18  crowded  with  both  men  and  women,  all  of  whom  arc 
sullen  and  discontented.  At  last  the  clergyman  arrives, 
and  then : 

lli>  BUrplioe  on,  they  then  prepare 

To  joy ii  with  liim  in  Common  Prayer; 
Nor  Psalms  nor  prayers  did  \w  omit  any, 

Till  OOming  to  thai  place  i'  tli'  Litany, 


SEEVICES  IN  NONJUEOES'   OEATOEIES       287 

Wherein  obliged  by  name  to  pray 
For  those  who  bear  the  Sovereign  sway, 
He  did  in  's  prayer  no  name  put  in, 
But  those  of  gracious  King  and  Queen  ; 
Which  prayer,  no  sooner  did  it  reach  the 
Ears  of  them  all,  but  '  We  beseech  Thee  ' 
Echoed  more  loud  by  persons  there 
Than  the  response  to  any  prayer 
Which  in  the  Liturgy  we  read 
From  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  Nicene  Creed. 

The  clergyman  takes  for  his  text  Romans  xiii.  1,  2,  and 
the  sermon  is  described — or  imagined.  In  the  middle  of 
it  the  meeting  is  interrupted  by  a  constable  and  party  of 
musketeers,  who  drag  them  all  before  the  magistrates. 
The  oath  is  tendered  and  refused,  and  everyone  has  to  pay 
a  fine  of  forty  shillings.  It  is  impossible  to  say  whether 
this  is  a  real  or  an  imaginary  scene  ;  it  is  probably  an 
exaggerated  account  of  what  actually  took  place,  and  the 
catastrophe  is  exactly  what  happened  some  years  later  in 
the  Goodman's  Fields  Chapel,  under  Dr.  Welton,  except 
that  the  punishment  in  the  real  case  was  more  severe. 

One  occasional  service  in  the  Nonjuring  chapels,  which 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  could  not  find  a  counterpart 
in  the  Established  Church,  was  the  admission  of  a 
Penitent — that  is,  one  who  had  taken  the  oaths,  and,  now 
repenting,  desired  to  be  admitted  into  the  fold.  '  A  Form 
of  Recantation'  was  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Kettlewell,  in 
which  the  Penitent  humbles  himself  to  the  very  dust, 
and  is  then  received  with  the  most  solemn  injunctions. 
The  whole  service  is  of  great  length  ;  it  will  be  found  in 
full  in  Appendix  XIX.  of  Kettlewell's  '  Compleat  Works 
and  Life.'  Another  Form  for  •  Renunciation  of  ye  Schism 
made  by  ye  Revolution  Church,'  dated  December  15, 1716, 
followed  by  '  The  Manner  of  Conferming  their  Orders 
who  were  ordained  in  Schism,'  dated  March  20,  1716-7, 


288  THE  NONJURORS 

is  among  the  Kenyan  MSS.  at  Gredington.  In  the  Non- 
juring  Prayer  Book  of  1718  (to  be  noticed  in  the  next 
section),  there  is  a  '  Form  of  Admission  of  a  Penitent,' 
and  in  174G  Dr.  Deacon  put  forth  a  '  Form  of  Admitting 
:i  Convert  into  the  Communion  of  the  Church,'  which 
it  is  to  be  feared  was  not  much  used,  for  the  Nonjurors 
after  1746  dwindled  rapidly  away. 

Passing  from  London  to  the  country  we  find  Nonjuring 
assemblies  very  sparse  and  irregular.  They  were  either 
held  in  the  private  chapel  of  some  nobleman  or  gentleman 
who  was  favourable  to  the  cause,  and,  being  privileged  to 
keep  a  chaplain,  was  glad  to  avail  himself  of  the  services 
of  some  Nonjuring  priest ;  this,  as  we  have  seen,  was  done 
at  Longleat,  at  Shottesbrooke,  at  Burghley,  at  Eastwell,  at 
Vale  Koyal,  and  other  places  which  might  be  mentioned, 
or  else  they  arose  from  the  enterprise  of  some  individual 
clergyman  ;  Thomas  Brett  at  Spring  Grove  is  one  instance, 
and  the  following  is  a  still  more  interesting  one,  which  is 
found  among  the  Eawlinson  MSS.  in  the  doctor's  un- 
published continuation  of  Wood's  '  Athenae  Oxonienses.' 

Moses  Soame  (or  Some)  was  a  graduate  of  Christ's 
College,  Cambridge,  and  became  rector  of  Broughton, 
near  Kettering,  '  of  which  benefice  he  had  the  advowson, 
which  he  sold  on  the  change  of  Government  at  the  Revo- 
lution and  then  resigned,  his  conscience  not  permitting 
him  to  take  the  new  oaths.'  He  retired  to  the  hamlet 
of  Little  Calworth,  in  Hunts,  where  he  had  an  estate  of 
his  own,  and  there  'he  built  a  small  chapel,  resolving  to 
dedicate  the  remainder  of  his  days  to  the  service  of  God 
in  this  place,  to  which  chapel  he  performed  the  daily 
offices  <>r  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer  for  many  years 
I-  for  all  the  remaining  part  of  his  life.  lie  also 
therein,  both  morning  and  evening,  ever}  day  throughout 
lip   year,  administered  the  Holy  Communion  tohis  family, 


NONJUEING  SEEVICES  OUTSIDE  LONDON    289 

and  to  as  many  others  of  the  neighbourhood  as  would 
come  to  partake  of  it — the  cup  in  alder  wine,  which 
answered  the  purpose  as  he  thought,  since  his  circum- 
stances would  not  allow  him  to  purchase  other  wine  for 
such  constant  use.' 

At  the  chief  centres,  outside  London,  of  the  Nonjurors 
we  have  rather  vague  and  scattered  notices  of  some  sort 
of  provision  made  for  their  common  worship.  Hearne 
writes  with  provoking  vagueness  in  1705  :  '  It  seems  the 
Non-Jurors  in  Oxford  receive  the  Sacrament  at  Mr. 
Sheldon's  chamber  at  X*  Church,  who  finds  all  the 
necessaries  for  it.' l 

About  Cambridge  we  have  a  much  more  distinct 
notice  in  the  Diary  of  Abraham  de  la  Pryme,  the 
antiquary,  of  St.  John's  College,  who  writes  : 

1695,  Oct.  3. — The  Jacobites  set  up  separate  meetings  all 
over,  when  there  was  any  number  of  them,  at  which  meetings 
I  myself  have  once  or  twice  been  in  Cambridge,  for  we  had 
about  20  fellows  in  our  College  that  were  Nonjurors.  The 
service  they  used  was  the  Common  Prayer,  and  always  prayed 
heartily  for  King  James,  naming  him  most  commonly  ;  but  in 
some  meetings,  they  only  prayed  for  the  King,  not  naming  who. 
.  .  .  Their  meetings  in  Cambridge  were  oftentimes  broken  up 
by  order  of  the  Vice-Chancellor. 

Thomas  Baker's  remark  to  Hearne  several  years  later, 
that  he  continued  to  worship  at  the  Established  Church 
and  did  not  understand  'this  new  communion,'2  seems 
possibly  to  imply  that  provision  was  made  for  the  worship 
of  '  the  new  communion  '  at  Cambridge ;  and  the  late 
Mr.  Potts,  of  '  Euclid '  fame,  told  me  himself  that  he  dis- 
tinctly remembered  when  he  was  young  a  place  being 
pointed  out  to  him  at  Cambridge  where  the  Nonjurors 
used  to  worship.     As  Mr.  Potts  was  born  in  1805,  the 

1  Reliquia  Heamiance,  i.  32.  ■  Collections,  i.  44. 

c 


290  THE  NONJURORS 

traditions  of  a  Nonjuring  chapel  may  well  have  lingered 
on  until  the  time  of  his  youth. 

At  Bristol  a  certain  Mr.  Bisse  (his  name  occurs  in  no 
list  of  Nonjurors)  is  said  to  have  been  arrested  for  preach- 
ing to  a  Jacobite  congregation  in  1718 ;  but  '  the  con- 
gregation rescued  their  pastor.' :  The  West  of  England 
was  the  last  part  in  which  Jacobitism  lingered,  so  the 
story  is  highly  probable ;  but  I  doubt  whether  it  means  a 
Nonjuring  chapel  proper,  which  was  not  necessarily  the 
same  thing  as  a  Jacobite  meeting.  At,  or  near  Ash- 
bourne, there  was  a  service  regularly  conducted  by  Thomas 
Bedford,  son  of  Hilkiah.  At  Manchester,  which  became  a 
great  stronghold  of  Jacobitism,  there  were  for  the  later 
Nonjurors  two  chapels,  one  in  Fennell  Street,  served  by 
the  well-known  Dr.  Deacon,  and  one  called  Trinity  Chapel, 
served  by  the  ■  Oxford  Methodist,'  Mr.  Clayton,  which 
was  virtually,  if  not  nominally,  a  Nonjuring  place  of 
worship ;  and  (horresco  referens  !)  the  Collegiate  Church 
itself,  then  called  '  the  Old  Church,'  had,  to  say  the  least 
<>f  it,  strong  Jacobite  and  Nonjuring  sympathies.  Later 
still  there  was  a  Nonjuring  chapel  at  Shrewsbury,  served 
by  Dr.  Cartwright,  Dr.  Deacon's  son-in-law.  These  will 
come  before  us  again  in  connection  with  the  later  Non- 
jurors. But  before  that  time  a  lamentable  division 
occurred  in  connection  with  the  Nonjuring  services. 
During  the  first  quarter  of  a  century,  speaking  roughly. 
there  was  practically  a  unanimity  in  the  little  com- 
munity on  this  point.  Then  the  apple  of  discord  was 
thrown  in  their  midst  in  the  shape  of  what  was  techni- 
cally called 

THE   USAGES   CONTROVERSY. 

It  is  difficult  to  help  connecting  the  outbreak  of  this 
be  with  the  death  <>f   Dr.  Eickes.     Bickea  died  on 
1  London  fa  the  ./■■.  ;.  Bl% 


THE   USAGES  CONTEOVEESY  291 

December  15,  1715,  and  left  no  one  behind  him  who 
could  quite  fill  his  place  as  the  universally  recognised 
head  of  the  community.  His  natural  successor  as  metro- 
politan, so  to  speak,  of  the  Nonjurors  was  Jeremy  Collier, 
who,  in  the  larger  world,  at  any  rate,  was  even  better 
known  by  his  writings  than  Hickes  himself ;  and  it  was 
more  than  once  hinted  by  his  opponents  that  it  was 
Collier's  ambition  to  hold  this  place  which  originated 
the  unhappy  controversy.  If  this  were  so,  Collier  was 
assuredly  '  hoist  with  his  own  petard ' ;  for  it  was  this 
very  controversy,  more  than  anything  else,  which  de- 
barred him  from  assuming  the  mantle  which  Hickes  had 
dropped,  and  which  should  naturally  have  fallen  upon 
him.  But  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Collier  was 
actuated  by  any  such  motive  in  taking  the  leading  part  he 
did  in  the  matter  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  quite 
sufficient  reason  to  account  for  his  conduct,  without  un- 
charitably assigning  to  him  the  baser  motive  of  personal 
ambition. 

In  fact,  the  outbreak  of  the  controversy,  deplorable 
though  it  was,  was  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world 
to  happen.  The  Nonjurors  assigned  the  very  highest 
importance  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  the  central  act  of 
Christian  worship.  Not  only  so ;  they  insisted  strongly 
on  its  sacrificial  character.  Everything  that  could  ele- 
vate the  Holy  Sacrament  and  bring  out  prominently  its 
sacrificial  aspect  would  be  likely  to  find  acceptance  with 
them.  Well,  but  was  there  not  an  office  which  some  of 
the  holiest  and  most  competent  Churchmen  of  the  day, 
men  like  Archbishop  Sharp,  Bishop  Wilson,  of  Sodor  and 
Man,  John  Johnson  of  Cranbrook,  Joseph  Bingham, 
none  of  whom  were  Nonjurors,  would  fain  have  seen 
restored  in  place  of  the  one  in  established  use — a  service 
for  which  their  late   venerable   father,   Dr.  Hickes,  had 


292  THE  NONJURORS 

expressed  his  preference,  had  printed  in  an  Appendix  to 
his  '  Christian  Priesthood,'  and  had  actually  used  in  his 
orator}'  in  Scroop's  Court  ?  It  would  have  been  strange 
indeed  if  the  Nonjurors,  who  were  naturally  drawn  to 
liturgical  study,  who  were  unfettered  by  State  trammels, 
who  were  tied  neither  by  duty  nor  by  gratitude  to  ■  the 
Establishment,'  which  had  been  but  a  harsh  stepmother 
to  them,  had  not  thought  of  that  First  Prayer  Book  of 
King  Edward  VI.,  which  certainly  met  their  wants 
better  than  the  one  in  use.  And  so  the  question  arose, 
not  from  the  private  ambition  of  any  individual,  but  from 
the  nature  of  the  case. 

Before  entering  into  the  history  it  may  be  premised 
that  the  '  Usages  '  were  these  four  : 

(1)  The  mixed  chalice. 

(2)  Prayers  for  the  faithful  departed. 

(3)  Prayer  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the 
consecrated  elements. 

(4)  The  Oblatory  Prayer,  offering  the  elements  to  the 
Father  as  symbols  of  His  Son's  Body  and  Blood. 

These  four  points  are  all  covered  by  King  Edward's 
First  Prayer  Book  :  wherein  (1)  the  rubric  orders  the 
putting  a  little  pure  and  clean  water  to  the  wine  in 
the  chalice;  (2)  instead  of  'Let  us  pray  for  Christ's 
Church  militant  here  in  earth,'  the  invitation  is  '  Let  us 
pray  for  the  whole  state  of  Christ's  Church,'  the  Latei 
words  being  added  for  obvious  reasons  ;  and  in  the  prayer 
itself  there  is  a  long  and  beautiful  clause  commending  to 
God's  mercy  those  'which  are  departed  hence  from  us 
with  the  sign  of  faith,  and  now  do  rest  in  the  Bleep  of 
peace ; '  and  (3)  and  (4)  are  both  distinctly  covered  by  two 
I  (ration  Prayer  which  were  expunged 

from  the    second  and    subsequent  Books.     It  was    not, 
ictly  tin    First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI. 


NON-USAGEE'S  ACCOUNT  OF  ITS  RISE       293 

which  the  Usagers  made  their  form  of  worship,  as  we 
shall  see  presently. 

The  uprise  of  the  controversy  has  been  described 
vividly  by  two  hands,  one  that  of  a  Non-Usager,  the  other 
that  of  a  Usager ;  so  by  the  insertion  of  both  accounts  a 
fair  view  of  the  situation  will  be  gained. 

The  first  is  appended  to  a  tract  entitled  '  Mr.  Collier's 
Desertion  Discussed ; x  or,  The  Office  of  "Worship  in  the 
Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  defended  against  the 
bold  attacks  of  that  Gentleman,  late  of  her  Communion, 
now  of  his  own.'  It  is  dated  'Worcester,  December 
1719,'  and  has  been  attributed  variously  to  Blackbourne, 
Hawes,  and  Gandy.     It  runs  as  follows : 

An  Historical  Account  of  the  Schism. 
In  July,  1716  there  happened  in  conversation  some  mention 
of  Edward  VI.'s  first  Liturgy,  and  Proposals  for  reviving  it ; 
which  being  several  times  repeated  and  insisted  on  by  the 
Advocates  of  its  Eestoration,  at  length  they  desired  that  a 
time  and  place  might  be  fixed  on  to  deliberate  farther  on  this 
affair ;  which  was  granted. 

Then  follows  a  long  account  of  the  two  meetings  and 
their  chairman,  who  was  undoubtedly  Collier,  though  no 
names  are  given. 

At  the  Second  meeting  a  Paper  by  way  of  Petition  for  the 
Alterations  aimed  at  was  (to  most)  unexpectedly  produced  and 
read,  which  had  been  signed  by  some  within  doors,  but  by  more 
without.  Then  [after  a  dispute]  the  alterations  were  proposed ; 
which  being  fairly  and  calmly  debated  on  both  sides,  and  put  to 
the  vote,  a  great  majority  declared  against  them,  and  this  Dr. 

Brett  himself  frankly  owns.    '  The  majority would  not  allow 

that  an  Iota  or  Tittle  of  the  Office  in  the  Common  Prayer- 
Book  should  be  altered  '  (Vindic.  of  P.S.  Pref.  p.  6).2  Upon  our 
standing  our  ground,  and  abiding  by  the  resolution  of  the  last 
meeting  the  Restorers  assembled,  where   they  were  secure  of 

1  This  title  has,  of  course,  reference  to  the  title  of  Collier's  own  tract, 
The  Desertion  Discussed,  published  just  twenty  years  before. 

2  For  an  account  of  this  '  Vindication '  see  infra,  p.  304. 


o94  THE   NONJURORS 

having  no  opposition  and  drew  up  an  instrument  declaring 
they  thought  it  necessary  to  put  those  Primitive  and  Catholic 
Usages  (as  they  call  'em)  in  Practice,  Dec.  19,  1717.  And  the 
next  day  two  of  them  sufficiently  declar'd  they  would  no  longer 
join  in  Communion  with  us,  hy  giving  Injunctions  for  altering 
the  Liturgy.  This  on  Dec.  20,  1717.  .  .  .  The  governing 
principle,  humanly  speaking,  precludes  all  possibility  of  union, 
as  if  the  most  distinguished  merit  consisted  in  running  as  far  as 
they  could  from  old  friends.  Thus  they  broke  off  from  the 
Communion  both  of  the  English  and  Scotch  Church,  and  are  in 
Communion  of  no  part  of  the  world  ;  composed  a  New  Office 
and  withdrew  from  those  who  could  not  approve  it,  forbidding 
Communion  to  be  held  with  all  such.  This  act  was  their  Pre- 
paration for  Easter,  1718,  when  they  defaced  the  beauty  of 
holiness  by  their  new  office.  The  Assembly  where  this  was 
enacted,  consisted  of  8  English  and  6  Scotch  clergymen,  and 
even  of  that  number,  one  who  was  under  deliberation  made  no 
long  delay  to  declare  for  the  Church  of  England;  another 
like  the  Scapegoat,  was  sent  packing  into  the  Wilderness  of 
Popery ;  and  a  third,  if  of  any  communion,  has  wandered  into 
the  same  broad  way. 

In  the  last  fatal  interview  the  Chief l  opened  the  causes  of  the 
assembly,  viz.  :  the  unsuccessfulness  of  the  Proposals  and  the 
necessity  of  the  things  debated,  upon  which  (he  said)  a  Separa- 
tion became  unavoidable ;  and  then  he  recommended  to  them 
the  New  Communion  Office  which  was  read  distinctly,  and  in 
most  things  approv'd  by  those  present. 

Thus  far  the  Non-Usager.  Now  let  us  see  what  the 
Usager  says  about  the  same  matter.  As  to  the  authorship 
of  this  account  there  is  no  doubt,  for  it  occurs  in  Brett's 
extremely  valuable  'Collection  of  Liturgies'  (1720), 
printed  with  his  name  attached,  and  the  writer  begins 
with  his  own  personal  experience: 

When   i    had   quitted   the   public  Communion  and  joined 

bo  the  Communion  of  Bishop  Eiokes,  ...  1  conceived 

1  had  authority,  or  al  least  hie  Leave  to  do  those  things  whioh 

he  had  bo  muoh  recommended  in  Ids  public  writings.     1  from 

mal  time,  when  I  did  administer  the  Eucharist,  always  mixed 

1   Collier. 


USAGEK'S  ACCOUNT  OF  ITS  EISE  295 

water  with  the  wine  ;  I  left  out  the  words  '  militant  in  earth,' 
and  I  said  the  Prayer  of  Oblation  and  Invocation  aloud. 
Other  persons  who  were  sensible  of  these  defects  in  the  esta- 
blished Communion  Office  endeavoured  to  supply  them  in  such 
a  manner  as  they  thought  most  expedient,  some  one  way,  some 
another,  which  broke  our  Uniformity.  This  being  observed 
by  some  among  us,  some  months  after  the  death  of  Bishop 
Hickes,  they  thought  it  advisable  to  lay  the  case  before  their 
superiors  and  to  desire  their  direction  on  these  points,  that  the 
Uniformity  might  not  be  broken.  Hereupon  the  Bishops  and 
several  Presbyters  met  to  consult  what  was  to  be  done  in  this 
matter ;  but  the  Major  part  declared,  that  as  there  was  a 
Liturgy  established,  the  way  to  preserve  Uniformity  was  to 
stick  close  to  that,  and  they  had  no  authority  to  recede  one 
tittle  from  it :  That  as  to  the  matters  proposed  concerning 
mixing  water  with  the  Sacramental  Wine,  praying  for  the 
departed,  making  an  Oblation  of  the  Elements,  and  Invoking 
the  Descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  bless  and  sanctify  the  Bread 
and  Cup,  some  said  they  were  indeed  desideranda  ;  however  it 
was  not  seasonable  to  introduce  them  at  this  Time,  and  others 
seemed  not  to  approve  of  them  at  any  Time.  But  as  there 
were  some  there  of  both  Orders  who  thought  these  things  to  be 
essentially  necessary  to  the  Eucharist,  they  very  much  pressed, 
that  as  there  was  an  English  Liturgy  made  in  the  2nd  and  3rd 
years  of  King  Edward  VI.  which  contained  all  that  was  now 
desired,  the  Communion  might  be  administered  among  us 
according  to  that  Office ;  or  at  least  some  of  the  Prayers  and 
Directions  in  that  Communion  Office  might  be  added  to  the 
present  Office.  But  the  Majority  still  insisted  that  they  were 
obliged  to  adhere  to  the  present  Liturgy,  and  could  make  no 
alterations  in  it.     [Hence  the  Schism.] 

The  controversy  begins  moderately,  but,  as  is  the 
way  of  controversies,  vires  acquirit  eundo.  '  Keasons 
for  Eestoring  some  Prayers  and  Directions  as  they  stood 
in  the  First  English  Eeformed  Liturgy '  was  the  first 
contribution ;  it  appeared  in  1717,  and  created  such  a 
sensation  that  it  reached  a  fourth  edition  in  1718.  The 
writer  was  Jeremy  Collier,  and  it  is  written  temperately, 
and,  needless  to  add,  very  ably.     He  specifies  the  Four 


296  THE  NONJURORS 

Points,  shows  how  they  are  all  contained  in  the  First 
Prayer  Book,  affirms  that  he  '  goes  on  the  ground  that 
the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  proper  Sacrifice,'  fortifies  his 
position  by  citations  from  the  Primitive  Fathers  and 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  and  quotes  the  statute  which 
says  of  the  first  Prayer  Book,  •  'twas  finished  by  the  aid 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  He  was  immediately  answered  in  a 
pamphlet,  '  No  Beason  for  restoring  the  Prayers  and 
Directions  of  Edward  VL's  First  Liturgy,'  by  a  Nonjuror 
(1717),  the  '  Nonjuror  '  being  Nathanael  Spinckes.  This, 
too,  was  ably  written ;  but  the  writer  does  not  know  so 
much  about  his  subject  as  Collier,  and  in  more  than  one 
point  lays  himself  open  to  a  crushing  retort.  For  in- 
stance, he  expresses  some  doubt  as  to  what  Justin  Martyr 
means  by  the  /cpafxa,  or  Mixture,  and  objects  that  it  is 
mentioned  by  no  one  before  Justin  Martyr ;  he  declares 
that  Tertullian  was  the  first  Christian  who  mentions 
Prayers  for  the  Dead,  and  hints  that  he  probably  '  re- 
ceived it  with  his  Montanism,'  adding  that  '  we  hear 
nothing  about  it  out  of  Afric  for  100  years  after  him,' 
that  it  is  '  built  wholly  on  Tradition,'  and  that  '  S.  Cyprian 
is  the  only  authority  for  it  in  the  third  century.' 

Collier  was  not  the  man  to  let  such  slips  pass.  There 
quickly  appeared  'A  Defence  of  the  Seasons,'  &c.  (1718), 
in  which  he  asks  very  pertinently,  Is  not  Justin  Martyr 
the  first  Father  who  gives  an  account  of  the  Christian 
ip?  defends  successfully  the  argument  from  tradi- 
bi<  ii  by  the  analogy  of  Sunday,  and  asserts  sweepingly, 
I- ut  giving  strong  grounds  for  his  assertion,  thai  'the 
Tradition  for  the  mizt  cup  was  early,  general,  and  un- 
interrupted.' Spinckes  quickly  replied  in  a  pamphlet 
<  mitlcd  '  No  sutiicient  Reason  Eor  restoring  seine  Prayers 
and  Directions  of  Kim  Edward  VL's  First  Liturgy* 
(1718).     The  insertion  of   the  qualifying  epithet  'suffi- 


BRETT'S  DEFENCE  OF  THE  USAGES         297 

cient '  may  perhaps  indicate  that  the  writer  felt  he  had 
gone  too  far  in  his  former  work. 

Others  rushed  into  the  fray ;  but  Collier  and  Spinckes 
were  regarded  as  the  leaders  of  the  Usagers  and  Non- 
Usagers  respectively,  and  for  various  reasons  they  were 
the  proper  persons  to  be  so ;  but  they  were  not,  in  my 
opinion,  the  best  and  most  effective  writers  on  either  side 
on  this  particular  subject.  The  best  defender  of  the 
Usagers  with  his  pen  was  Thomas  Brett,  because  he 
knew  more  about  liturgical  matters  than  any  who  took 
part  in  the  dispute.  The  best  defender  of  the  Non- 
Usagers  was  Charles  Leslie,  not  because,  like  Brett,  he 
had  made  liturgiology  his  special  study,  but  because  his 
plain  common  sense,  his  logical  mind,  and  his  forcible, 
incisive  style  enabled  him  to  point  out  the  real  weakness 
of  the  Usagers'  position  more  clearly  than  anyone  else. 

Dr.  Brett  entered  the  lists  in  his  valuable  little  work 
entitled  'Tradition  necessary  to  Explain  and  Interpret 
Holy  Scripture  '  (1718).  It  deals  towards  the  close  with 
Spinckes'  '  No  Keason,'  &c,  but  after  the  sheets  were  sent 
to  the  press  Spinckes'  second  pamphlet  '  No  Sufficient 
Season,'  &c,  had  appeared,  so  Brett  adds  a  postscript 
dealing  with  '  the  learned  Gentleman's  little  Treatise,'  of 
which  he  evidently  has  not  a  very  high  opinion.  With 
the  utmost  courtesy  he  points  out  clearly  how  the  proper 
use  of  tradition  bears  upon  the  matter  in  hand,  showing) 
among  other  things,  that  the  Mixture  was  sanctioned  by 
the  example  of  Christ,  who  at  the  institution  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  obviously  used  the  Paschal  Cup,  which, 
as  a  plain  matter  of  history,  contained  wine  with  a 
mixture  of  water. 

If  it  had  been  an  abstract  question  of  ecclesiastical 
history  and  primitive  use,  the  Usagers  could  probably 
have  proved  their  point,  particularly  as  there  was  no  one 


298  THE  NONJURORS 

on  the  other  side  who  knew  the  subject  so  well  as  Brett, 
Of  who  could  write  so  effectively  as  Collier.  But  Charles 
Leslie  saw  that  that  was  not  the  real  question.  He  was 
in  exile,  but  a  report  reached  him  about  the  controversy 
in  his  distant  home ;  indeed,  his  advice  was  formally 
asked  on  the  points  at  issue,  and  he  became  a  most 
valuable  ally  of  the  Non-Usagers,  not  so  much  from  his 
knowledge  of  the  subject  as  from  the  plain,  common- 
sense  view  which  he  took  of  it.  He  wrote  (1)  '  A  Letter 
from  Mr.  Leslie  to  his  Friends  against  Alterations  or 
Additions  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  ' 
(1718) ;  (2)  '  A  Letter  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Charles  Leslie 

concerning  the  New  Separation  to  Mr.  B '  [probably 

Mr.  Bowyer]  (1719).  In  the  first  he  seems  to  me  rather 
to  give  himself  away  by  unduly  depreciating  the  value  of 
tradition.  It  immediately  brought  out  an  ironical  reply, 
entitled  '  An  Answer  to  a  Printed  Letter  said  to  be 
written  by  Mr.  Lesley.'  The  writer  professes  to  think 
that  Leslie  could  not  really  have  written  the  letter ;  for 
he  would  never,  with  his  principles,  have  decried  tradition, 
or  '  put  the  tradition  of  the  Elders  on  a  level  with  the 
Tradition  of  the  Illuminated  Fathers  of  the  Christian 
Church,'  or  have  not  known  that  we  believe  the  Holy 
Scriptures  themselves  from  tradition.  'Mr.  Leslie,'  ho 
ftdds,  'knows  very  well  that  the  Standard  of  our  English 
Reformation  is  Primitive  Doctrine,  Discipline.  Worship, 
and  Government,  and  that  we  have  not  yet  come  up  to 
our  Standard,  and  therefore  ought  by  all  means  to  get  it 
as  soon  as  we  can.'  Accordingly,  he  suggests  that  ■  BOme 
of  those  Sectarians  or  Beretics  whom  God  enabled  Mr. L. 
to  confute  forged  this  letter  in  his  came.'  The  '  Answer ' 
i  .  from  the  writer's  poinl  of  view  (which,  one  might  have 
aed,  would  be  Mr.  Leslie's  vi.-w  also),  unanswerable  ; 
"  d  one  cannot  help  fancying  that 


CHAELES  LESLIE  ON  THE   USAGES  299 

Collier's  hand  had  been  at  work,  though  there  is  no 
evidence  that  it  had.  But  in  his  next  '  Letter '  Mr.  Leslie 
hits  the  real  blot,  and  with  his  usual  acumen  turns  the 

tables  against  the  Usagers.     Mr.  B was  a  Usager, 

and  Leslie  begins  most  pertinently :  '  That  I  may  not  go 
upon  misinformations  ....  who  made  this  separation  ? 
Did  they  separate  from  you  because  you  put  water  in 
your  wine  ?  or  did  you  separate  from  them  because  they 
did  not  ?  '  This  seems  to  me  to  be  the  whole  gist  of  the 
question,  which  was  not  whether  the  Usages  were  primi- 
tive or  not,  but  (1)  whether  they  were  essential ;  (2)  if 
not,  whether  it  was  expedient  to  insist  upon  them  at  the 
risk  of  dividing  an  already  small  and  diminishing  body ; 
and  (3)  whether  the  whole  Church  of  England  since  the 
Keformation  had  been  in  schism  for  want  of  them.  Upon 
these  points  Leslie  insists  with  remorseless  logic,  and  he 
was  not  at  all  adequately  answered.  In  one  reply  it  was 
rather  weakly  urged,  '  Notwithstanding  our  Persuasion 
that  none  of  these  Primitive  Usages  can  be  dispensed 
with,  yet  we  do  not  insist  on  their  being  received  by  our 
Brethren  as  necessary  things ;  provided  they  officiate  by 
them,  they  may,  if  they  please,  declare  their  compliance 
means  no  more  than  Temporary  Concessions  and  Expe- 
dients for  Union.' l  As  if  the  Non-Usagers  could  be 
content  with  a  compromise  which  really  meant  that  they 
should  do  one  thing  and  think  another  !  Another  answer 
is  a  long  pamphlet,  probably  by  Roger  Laurence,  in 
which  the  writer  adopts  the  same  ironical  strain,  but  with 
less  force,  which  had  been  previously  adopted — namely, 
that  '  some  one  or  other  has  presumed  to  burlesque  his 
[Mr.  Leslie's]  orthodoxy  in  printing  Letters  from  him 
which  none  that  know  him  are  willing  to  believe  were 

1  '  Answer  to  a  Letter  from  the  Kev.  Charles  Leslie  concerning  what  he 
calls  the  New  Separation  '  (1719). 


300  THE  NONJUKORS 

i  71  t  the  productions  of  his  pen.' ]  But  neither  of  these, 
nor  any  of  the  other  answers,  deals  adequately  with  the 
main  point,  which  was  not  whether  the  Usages  were 
primitive,  nor  whether  they  were  desirable  in  themselves, 
but  whether  they  were  essential.  The  Usagers  contended 
that  they  were,  and  hence  were  called  Essentialists.  Now 
this  would  mean  that  the  whole  Church  of  England,  a 
great  number — perhaps  the  majority — of  the  Nonjurors 
themselves,  the  whole  Church  of  Eome  (which,  though 
sanctioning  such  usages,  did  not  regard  them  as  essential), 
and  of  course  all  other  religious  communities  were  un- 
churched, and  that  the  Church  in  Europe  consisted  of  a 
small  fragment  which  had  only  just  come  into  existence ! 
Or,  as  Mr.  Leslie  put  it,  their  contention  obliged  them 

to  refuse  Communion  with  all  other  Churches  (which  were  all 
in  the  nation)  who  celebrated  the  Communion  according  to  the 
established  liturgy  of  the  National  Church,  to  disown  the 
Liturgy  to  which  they  themselves  have  given  their  unfeigned 
assent  and  consent,  and  which  has  been  established  by  all 
authority,  spiritual  and  temporal,  in  the  nation,  and  never  to 
use  it  more,  especially  by  no  means  the  Communion  Service  ; 
and  that  we  have  had  no  true  Sacrament  (except  at  Barking) 
since  the  Reformation.3 

This  is  strongly  but  not  unfairly  put,  and  an  answer  to  it 
was  not  forthcoming.  The  reference  to  Barking  alludes 
to  the  pica  urged  that  Dr.  Hickes  had  used  the  mixed 
chalice  when  lie  was  vicar  of  Allhallows Barking.  Another 
writer— probably  Spinckea ■—  puts  the  matter  in  rather  a 
different  form,  bnl  quite  as  pertinently  :  '  I  earnestly  beg 
"f  our  old  Friends  and  Brethren,  who  have  so  unhappily 
withdrawn  from  us,  that  thej  will  remember  we  continue 

1    '■''  .nciplcs 

Letter,  s.iiii  to  have  inrn  written  by  him,  eoneenmtg 
own  Friend  ol  Sir.  i«   lie  (1719), 

i//-.  /;. 


NEW  COMMUNION  OFFICE  OF  1718  301 

still  the  same  as  we  were,  and  that  when  we  were  united 
it  was  upon  our  Principles,  not  theirs.'  x  In  short,  it 
seems  to  me  that,  while  the  Usagers  had  the  best  of  the 
argument  in  detail,  Brett  and  Collier  really  knowing  most 
about  the  subject,  they  put  themselves  hopelessly  in  the 
wrong  by  insisting  upon  the  necessity  of  what  was  not 
really  necessary,  and  what  was  being  introduced  at  a 
singularly  inopportune  time.  As  '  Usagers  '  they  were " 
right ;  as  '  Essentialists  '  they  were  wrong. 

While  this  controversy  was  going  on  the  New  Com- 
munion Office  appeared  under  the  title  of  '  A  Communion 
Office,  taken  partly  from  Primitive  Liturgies  and  partly 
from  the  First  English  Eeformed  Common  Prayer  Book, 
Together  with  Offices  for  Confirmation  and  the  Visitation 
of  the  Sick.'  The  Communion  Office  did  not  differ  much 
from  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  except  in 
one  important  particular.  The  *  Prayer  for  the  Descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  Consecrated  Elements ' 
CEiri/cXvcris),  which,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  the  third 
of  the  '  Four  Points,'  recognises  the  Objective  Pre- 
sence more  distinctly  than  the  corresponding  prayer  in 
King  Edward's  Book.  In  the  latter  the  invocation  is  : — 
'  Vouchsafe  so  to  bless  and  sanctify  with  Thy  Word  and 
Holy  Spirit  these  Thy  gifts  of  bread  and  wine,  that  they 
may  be  unto  us  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Thy  most  dearly 
beloved  Son '  ;  in  the  office  of  1718,  instead  of  '  that  they 
may  be  unto  us,'  the  words  are  '  that  they  may  become  ' ; 
also  in  King  Edward's  Book  the  invocation  comes  before 
the  words  of  institution,  in  the  Nonjurors'  Book  after 
the  words  of  institution ;  and  the  '  Prayer  for  the  whole 
Estate  of  Christ's  Church'  is  placed  after  instead  of 
before  the  Prayer  of  Consecration:  'For  when  the  Sacrifice 

1  Preface  to  No  Just  Grounds  for  the  Introducing  the  New  Communion 
Office,  &c,  by  a  Nonjuror  (1719). 


302  THE   NONJURORS 

commemorative  of  that  upon  the  Cross  is  finished,  is  the 
most  proper  time  to  declare  the  ends  of  the  Oblation, 
and  to  recommend  the  Church  to  the  Divine  Protection.' 
So  writes  the  author  of  the  Preface,  who  also  tells  us  that 

at  the  placing  of  the  Elements  on  the  Altar,  there  is  a  Prayer 
for  Acceptance  abridged  out  of  S.  Basil's  Liturgy  ;  the  Recital 
of  signal  instances  of  Divine  Providence  as  introductive  to  the 
Words  of  Institution  paraphrased  from  S.  James'  Liturgy,  and 
the  Prayer  of  Oblation  and  Invocation,  from  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  ;  that  the  Cross  and  the  Chrism  were  restored  in 
the  Confirmation,  the  Cross  being  used  in  the  first  Reformed 
Liturgy,  and  the  Chrism  being  primitive ;  and  that  the  Anoint- 
ing with  Oil  in  the  Office  was  primitive,  being  commended  by 
S.  James  ;  and  that  it  was  not  by  way  of  Extreme  Unction,  but 
in  order  to  recovery. 

It  is  an  interesting  question,  'Who  wrote  this  Pre- 
face ? '  because  it  is  all  but  certain  that  whoever  wrote  it 
had  the  main  hand  in  drawing  up  the  Office.  It  is  curious 
to  observe  how  many  different  theories  there  are  about 
the  composition.  Some  attribute  it  to  Deacon,  which  is 
absurd  on  the  face  of  it,  as  Deacon  was  then  under  twenty 
years  of  age ;  others  to  Collier ;  others  to  George  Smith 
of  Durham  (afterwards  a  Nonjuring  bishop),  under  the 
direction  of  Brett ;  others  think  that  three  Scotchmen, 
Campbell,  Gadderar,  and  Rattray,  had  much  to  do  with  it. 
Of  these  the  two  most  noted  as  liturgical  scholars  were 
Brett  ami  Rattray  ;  and  as  Rattray  was  certainly  in 
London  and  in  close  connection  with  the  English  Non- 
jurors abort  the  time  when  the  new  Office  was  being 
compiled,  be  would  naturally  be  consulted  on  the  mat- 
fcer,  and  his  opinion  would  have  great  weight;  Collier 
also  would,  ol  course,  have  his  say,  fol  he  was  ihc  ]>ri»i urn 

tncbiU   ol  the  whole  affair,  and  nothing  would  be  done 

without  his  approval;  but,  though  it  is  mainly  conjecture, 

•  in.    that  Brett   must  have   been   the  ohiei 


BEETT  AND  THE  NEW  OFFICE  303 

compiler  of  the  book,  and  also  the  writer  of  the  Preface  ; 
the  internal  evidence  of  style  and  matter  points  in  this 
direction.  Indeed,  in  a  '  Vindication,'  &C.,1  which  will 
come  before  us  directly,  he  all  but  admits  it.  Speaking 
of  the  '  Four  Points,'  which  he  calls  '  essential  Points 
and  necessary  to  Salvation '  (!)  he  adds  : 

I  believed  them  to  be  dcsideranda  only,  for  a  considerable 
time  before  I  could  persuade  myself  they  were  any  of  them 
essential.  I  examined  them  before  the  framing  [the  italics  are 
mine]  and  enjoining  a  New  Communion  Office,  and  I  have  in 
my  discourse  upon  the  Liturgies  given  my  Keasons  at  large 
why  I  believe  all  these  to  be  Essential  Points. 

But  this  is  anticipating.  Let  us  go  back  to  the  time 
of  the  first  use  of  the  New  Prayer  Book,  that  is,  Easter 
1719.  Before  the  year  was  over  it  was  assailed  in  various 
pamphlets,  the  most  important  of  which  was  one  entitled 
4  No  Just  Grounds  for  introducing  the  New  Communion 
Office,  or  Denying  Communion  to  those  who  cannot 
think  themselves  at  liberty  to  reject  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England  for  its  sake.  By  a  Nonjuror'  (1719). 
'  A  Nonjuror  '  was  undoubtedly  Nathanael  Spinckes,  and 
the  work  was  specially  intended  as  an  answer  to  Dr. 
Brett,  with  whom,  as  we  have  seen,2  he  had  already  crossed 
swords.     In  the  Preface  he  complains  : 

Our  zealous  restorers  have  thought  fit  to  change  the  scene, 
and  to  drop  King  Edward  VI.'s  Liturgy  in  behalf  of  which  they 
had  set  out  with  a  great  deal  of  warmth  and  to  compile 
another  of  their  own  ;  whence  they  have  expunged  the  Deca- 
logue, pray  that  the  Bread  in  the  Eucharist  may  be  made 
our  Saviour's  Body  and  the  Cup  his  Blood,  and  added  two 
new  Offices  for  Unction,  one  in  Confirmation,  one  upon  the 
sick  bed. 

In  the  body  of  the  work  he  deals  with  the  question  of 

Scripture  and  tradition,  and  discusses  the  evidence  of  the 

1  See  infra,  p.  304.  2  See  supra,  p.  297, 


304  THE  NONJURORS 

Fathers,  the  whole  being  directed  against  Brett's  treatise 
on  Tradition,  especially  its  Postscript  and  Appendix.  It 
will  be  observed  that  in  the  sentence  quoted  from  the 
Preface  the  writer  makes  a  strange  slip,  implying  that  the 
expunging  of  the  Decalogue  was  an  innovation  of  the  New 
Communion  Office.1  Of  course  Dr.  Brett  was  up  in  arms 
at  once,  and  in  1720  published  the  work  already  quoted, 
1  A  Vindication  of  the  Postscript  to  a  Book  called  "  The 
necessary  Use  of  Tradition  to  understand  the  Holy 
Scriptures,"  in  answer  to  a  Book  entitled  "  No  Just 
Grounds  for  Introducing  the  New  Communion  Office,  &c." 
By  Thomas  Brett,  LL.D.'  It  is  a  curious  instance  of  the 
veneration  in  which  Dr.  Hickes's  memory  was  held  that 
in  the  Preface  he  shelters  himself  under  that  great  man's 
writings,  though  Brett  himself  was  probably  the  better 
liturgical  scholar  of  the  two.  His  '  Vindication  '  is  in  one 
sense  quite  unanswerable.  He  contends  that  the  '  Four 
Points '  were  restored,  not  because  they  were  in  the  First 
Liturgy  of  Edward  VI.,  but  because  they  had  been  in  all 
the  liturgies  of  the  Church  from  the  Apostles'  days  to 
the  Keformation  Act.  '  The  New  Communion  Office  '  (as 
it  was  called)  contained  nothing  but  what  was  much 
older  than  the  present  Communion  Office  of  the  Church 
of  England  where  it  differed  from  it.  He  points  out 
courteously,  but  plainly,  his  opponent's  slip,  reminding 
him  that  'the  Decalogue  is  not  in  the  Communion  Office 
of  K.  Edward's  First  Liturgy,  nor  in  any  office  that  is 
not  of  a  later  date  ' ;  and  that  '  Make  the  Bread  the  Body 
of  Christ  and  the  Cup  the  Blood,'  instead  of  'that  they 
nidi/  be  until  us,'  is  in  all  the  liturgies  used  in  any  Church 
before  the   Reformation,  excepting  the  Roman  Canon. 

of  ooni  a  the  word   mag  only  mean  that  the  Decalogue  vrhion 
In  iii.-  established  Oftoe  la  expunged  in  the  NVw  Office;  batsarel]  tola 
.  boold  i  eased  more  clearly. 


COLLIEE  ON  THE  USAGES  305 

Collier  also  published  some  very  strong  tracts  in  1719  and 
1720,  dealing  mainly  with  another  point  which  was  dis- 
tinctly ad  rem.  Having  spoken  of  the  action  of  '  Calvin 
and  Knox  and  some  others  of  their  principles,'  he  adds  in 
his  strain  of  polished  sarcasm  : 

These  were  the  men  that  laid  aside  the  Mixture ;  that 
declar'd  against  Prayer  for  the  Dead  ;  that  allowed  no 
Eucharistick  Sacrifice,  nor  any  Oblatory  Prayer  which  might 
carry  to  that  sense.  Were  I  worthy  to  recommend  to  these 
gentlemen  Nonjurors,  I  should  rather  suggest  a  Preference  for 
Justin  Martyr  and  Irenaeus  &c,  those  Primitive,  non-resisting 
Fathers,  than  resign  to  the  novelties  of  the  16th  century  and  be 
governed  by  the  tenents  of  those  men  who  in  several  countries 
turned  the  World  upside  down,  and  pressed  their  Keformation 
with  Fire  and  Sword.1 

And  in  a  later  tract  (1720)  he  points  out,  certainly  with 
great  force  and  truth,  as  Hooker  pointed  out  before  him, 
that  it  was  '  the  Dissenter's,  not  the  Churchman's,  position 
to  require  in  points  of  worship  an  explicit  warrant  from 
Scripture,  an  undisputed  Text,  to  almost  a  Calvinistical 
excess.'  Those,  he  says,  were  '  not  enemies  to  the  Church 
of  England  who  would  revive  the  main  of  her  first 
Keformation,  when  all  her  Managers  were  English,  when 
she  was  neither  embarrass'd  with  Novelists  abroad,  nor 
overset  with  the  Regale  at  home.' 2 

At  first  the  weight  of  defending  the  Usages  and  the 
New  Office  which  incorporated  them  seems  to  have  fallen 
almost  entirely  upon  Collier  and  Brett,  who  were,  how- 
ever, quite  strong  enough  to  bear  it.  Their  chief  allies 
were  two  very  young  men,  Thomas  Deacon  and  Thomas 
Wagstaffe,  the  younger.  The  former  published  in  1718 
a  singularly  able  pamphlet,  considering  his  age,  on  '  The 

1  A  Vindication  of  tlie  '  Reasons,'  <&c,  and  '  Defence,'  &c,  by  the  Atithor 
of  them,  part  ii.,  1719. 

2  A  Further  Defence,  &c,  by  the  Author  of  the  '  Reasons,'  £c,  1720. 


306  THE  NONJURORS 

Doctrine  of  Rome  concerning  Purgatory,'  showing  that 
it  differed  in  toto  from  the  Usagers'  doctrine  when  they 
advocated  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  prefixing  a  most 
modest  Dedication  to  Dr.  Brett,  which  shows  that  he 
(Deacon)  hardly  deserved  to  be  twitted,  as  he  was,  with 
his  youthful  presumption.  Wagstaffe  published  in  1719 
a  Defence  of  the  Mixed  Chalice  in  excellent  Latin,  but 
these  only  dealt  with  single  points  in  the  controversy, 
and  neither  of  the  writers  had  come  to  his  full  maturity. 

On  the  other  side  the  Non-Usagers  had  many  well- 
known  names  among  their  writers.  Spinckes  and  Leslie 
have  already  been  noticed.  Matthias  Earbery  wrote 
vehemently,  not  to  say  violently,  on  the  same  side ; 
William  Snatt,  who  had  been  associated  with  Collier 
in  the  absolution  of  Sir  John  Perkins,  also  rushed  into 
the  fray  on  the  opposite  side  to  Collier ;  so  did  John 
Blackbourne,  who  was  a  very  prominent  man  in  the  party 
and  an  uncompromising  Non-Usager  to  the  last ;  and  so 
did  Henry  Gandy,  whose  writings  are  the  most  able  and 
effective  of  all  against  the  Usages,  at  any  rate  after  those 
of  Spinckes. 

But  in  spite  of  the  numerical  superiority  of  the  Non- 
Usagers  and  the  greater  bulk  of  their  writings  the  New 
Office  made  its  way;  and  after  fourteen  years,  during 
which  the  two  sections  of  the  Nonjurors  were  entirely 
separated,  each  section  consecrating  bishops  and  ordain- 
ing clergy  for  its  own  body,  the  two  united  again  on 
the  Usagers'  terms  about  1781,  in  which  year  Timothy 
Mawman  was  consecrated  by  three  bishops,  two  of  whom 
were  Usagers  and  one  a  Non-Usager. 

The  triumph  <>f  the  Usagers  was  not  surprising  when 

one  Looks  into  the  matter.    Controversial  writings,  like 

oan  i   be  weighed  as  well  as  counted,  and  Collier's 

and    Brett's  outweighed  all  on   the    other  side,   which 


TEIUMPH  OF  THE  USAGEES  307 

did  not  improve  its  chances  by  being  too  often  wildly 
extravagant  and  very  personal.  Such  expressions  as 
'  Tradition,  that  dear  Idol  which  they  have  worshipped, 
as  some  do  the  devil,  only  to  be  left  in  the  lurch,'  '  a 
few  ridiculous  Liturgies '  (that  is,  the  Clementine,  St. 
James's,  St.  Basil's,  &c. !),  '  the  Apostolick  Constitutions, 
the  spurious  offspring  of  a  weak,  hot-headed  Impostor,' l 
'that  gentleman  [Collier]  late  of  her  Communion  [the 
Church  of  England],  now  of  his  own,' 2  '  I  see  two  things 
very  ill  coupled,  Boy  and  Confidence '  [in  allusion  to 
Deacon's  youthfulness],3  really  did  more  harm  to  the 
writers'  own  side  than  to  that  of  their  adversaries. 
Leslie's  powerful  pen  could  do  nothing  more  for  the 
Non-Usagers  after  his  'Letter  to  Mr.  B.,'  which  was  his 
last  production.  The  death  of  Spinckes  in  1727  removed 
the  man  who,  not  only  by  his  learning  and  abilities,  but 
by  his  saintly  character  and  reputation,  was  their  most 
influential  supporter.  The  younger  Nonjurors  also  who 
were  coming  to  the  front  were  Usagers.  Thomas  Deacon 
was  gaining  age  and  experience,  and  could  no  longer  be 
reproached  with  his  youth  and  presumption ;  Thomas 
Wagstaffe,  the  younger,  proved  himself  quite  as  able  a 
man  as  his  father,  if  not  more  so ;  Thomas  Brett,  the 
younger,  took  exactly  the  same  line  as  Thomas  Brett,  the 
elder,  and  from  1727  father  and  son  were  bishops  to- 
gether ;  the  two  Scottish  bishops,  Campbell  and  Gadderar, 
who  were  most  closely  associated  with  the  English  Non- 
jurors, were  strong  '  Usagers.'  What  may  seem  strange, 
however,  the  exiled  "Wanderer,  whom  both  parties  alike 
recognised  as  their  lawful  king,  sympathised  with  the 
Non-Usagers.     As  he  was  himself  a  Eoman  Catholic  it 

1  Reflections  upon  Modern  Fanaticism,  by  M.  E.  (Matthias  Earbery). 

2  Mr.  Collier's  '  Desertion  Discussed.' 

3  A   Dialogue  in    Vindication  of  our  Present  Liturgy  and  Service  : 
between  Timothy  a  Clmrchman,  and  TJiomas  an  Essentialist. 

x  2 


308  THE  NONJURORS 

might  have  been  expected  that  he  would  side  with  those 
who  were  supposed  to  approach  nearest  to  Rome,  and 
were,  indeed,  charged,  both  by  Non-Usagers  and  Corn- 
pliers,  with  a  tendency  to  popery.  But  this  was  probably 
one  reason  why  the  Chevalier  took  the  other  side ;  he  was 
anxious  to  conciliate  his  Protestant  subjects,  and  knowing 
what  Rome  was,  he  was  perfectly  well  aware  that  the 
Usagers  were  in  reality  not  one  step  nearer  her  than  the 
Non-Usagers  ;  from  a  theological  point  of  view  there  was 
nothing  to  choose  between  them,  while  from  a  political, 
advantages  might  be  derived  from  his  taking  the  Non- 
Usagers'  side.  But  the  Nonjurors  had  quite  sense  enough 
to  see  that  in  such  a  matter  the  Chevalier's  views  were 
worth  just  nothing  at  all.  The  New  Offices  were  by 
degrees  generally  accepted,  and  by  1733  there  was  only 
one  bishop,  John  Blackbourne,  and  a  very  few  priests 
who  ministered  according  to  the  established  liturgy.  But 
there  was  no  real  and  permanent  union ;  fresh  causes 
of  dispute  soon  arose  and  fresh  divisions  took  place. 
•  The  beginning  of  strife  is  as  when  one  letteth  out 
water,'  and  the  spirit  of  discord  once  introduced  was 
never  healed. 


309 


CHAPTEE  VII 

THE   LATER   NONJURORS 

Internal  dissensions  contributed  largely  to  the  decline 
of  the  Nonjuring  cause ;  but  in  justice  to  the  later  Non- 
jurors it  should  be  added  that  there  were  other  reasons 
for  which  they  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  responsible. 
In  the  first  place,  time  was  against  them.  As  year  after 
year  elapsed,  the  memory  of  the  invalidly  deprived 
Fathers,  who  had  sacrificed  eminence  for  obscurity,  af- 
fluence for  penury,  in  the  cause  of  consistency,  of  loyalty, 
and  of  resistance  to  the  encroachments  of  the  State  upon 
the  spiritual  independence  of  the  Church,  grew  fainter 
and  fainter.  The  rising  generation  had  been  brought  up 
from  their  infancy  in  the  new  state  of  things,  and  knew 
no  other.1 

Men  were  in  no  mood  to  tolerate  in  the  Church  any 
more  than  in  the  State  another  revolution,  which  must 
have  happened  before  the  Nonjurors  could  have  their 
way.  It  is  true  that,  after  the  establishment  of  the  House 
of  Hanover  a  temporary  reaction  set  in.  Some  of  the 
warmest  friends  of  the  Protestant  Succession  had  been 
bitterly  disappointed ;  when  that  Succession  became  an 
established  fact  it  did  not  bring  in  the  halcyon  period 
which  they  had  fondly  expected;  and  it  became  so 
unpopular  among  the  unthinking  populace  as  to  raise 
riots  which  verged  perilously  near  to  another  revolution- 

1  This  point,  so  far  as  politics  were  concerned,  is  brought  out  with  his 
usual  clearness  and  raciness  by  Dean  Swift,  in  An  Inquiry  into  the 
Behaviour  of  the  Queen's  [Anne]  last  Ministry,  and  in  Free  Thoughts  on 
the  present  State  of  Affairs  (1714). 


310  THE  NONJURORS 

But,  oddly  enough,  this  very  discontent,  which  might 
have  been  expected  to  be  favourable  to  the  Nonjurors, 
was  in  reality  one  of  the  most  potent  causes  of  their 
downfall.  The  Hanoverian  dynasty  was  so  unpopular 
that  the  return  of  the  Stuarts  was  anticipated;  but  it 
was  anticipated  not  with  satisfaction,  but  with  the 
utmost  alarm,  not  to  say  panic ;  and  the  Nonjurors,  in 
conjunction  with  the  papists,  were  regarded  as  fons  et 
origo  mali.  So  no  language  was  bad  enough  for  them. 
Lord  Chesterfield  spoke  of  them  as  '  the  malicious  and 
contemptible  sect  of  the  Nonjurors ' ;  when  the  Nonjuring 
chapel  in  Spitalfields  was  opened  in  1716,  the  Weekly 
Journal  hoped  that  '  all  persons  loyally  affected  to  King 
George  will  timely  suppress  the  diabolical  society,  as  they 
have  done  the  like  seditious  assemblies  of  blind,  deluded 
fools  in  the  Savoy,  Scroope's  Court  in  Holborn,  and  in 
Aldersgate  Street '  ;  another  writer  mildly  remarked : 
'  Jacobites  and  Nonjurors  are  but  a  race  of  British 
Hottentots,  as  blind  and  bigotted  as  their  brethren  about 
the  Cape,  but  more  savage  in  their  manners.'  It  was 
thought  no  hardship  to  tax  them  double ;  in  1722  it  was 
proposed  and  carried  in  Parliament  to  raise  100,000/.  on 
the  estates  of  Nonjurors  and  papists ;  and  a  Nonjuring 
clergyman  was  thought  to  have  been  far  too  leniently 
treated  when  he  was  put  in  the  pillory,  fined,  and 
imprisoned  for  three  years,  for  being  concerned  in  the 
publication  of  a  book  which  had  been  stamped  with  the 
full  approval  of  the  saintly  Kobert  Nelson  ;  while  another 
bad  his  gown  stripped  off  his  back  by  the  common 
hangman.  This  violent  antagonism,  added  to  the  negative 
disadvantage  <>f  bring  entirely  shut  out  from  all  public 
•  mployments,  undoubtedly  contributed  to  tin-  gradual 
dwindling  away  of  the  Nonjuring  body. 

Bui  iii  that  body  there  were  still  men  of  transcendent 


NEW  CONSECEATIONS  IN  1720-1  311 

ability  and  piety,  as  the  following  sketches  of  individuals 
will,  it  is  hoped,  show. 

The  bishops  must,  of  course,  come  first.  The  prin- 
ciples of  the  Nonjurors  led  them  to  attach  so  great 
importance  to  the  episcopate  that  it  would  be  quite  out 
of  harmony  with  their  spirit  to  give  their  bishops  any  but 
the  first  place;  but  it  is  fair  to  add  that  some  who 
did  not  attain  episcopal  rank  were  far  more  eminent  than 
some  who  did.  In  fact,  several  of  the  later  bishops  will 
require  only  a  very  brief  notice. 

The  first  two  who  were  consecrated  after  the  Usages 
controversy  arose  were  Hilkiah  Bedford  and  Ealph 
Taylor.  The  consecration  took  place  on  St.  Paul's  Day 
(January  25),  1720-1,  in  the  chapel  at  Gray's  Inn,  of 
which  Dr.  Eichard  Eawlinson  was  the  minister.  The 
consecrators  were  Bishops  Spinckes,  Hawes,  and  Gandy, 
all  Non-Usagers.  Neither  of  the  two  lived  to  enjoy  his 
new  honours  long,  Bedford  dying  in  1724,  and  Taylor  in 
1722  ;  and  neither  of  them  took  any  prominent  part  in 
Nonjuring  affairs  after  his  consecration.  Bedford's  life- 
work  was  done  before  he  reached  the  episcopate,  and 
therefore  his  career  has  been  traced  in  connection  with 
the  earlier  Nonjurors.1  He  was  not  an  old  man  in  years 
when  he  became  a  bishop,  but  one  can  well  understand 
that  his  troubled  life,  with  his  three  years'  imprisonment, 
would  make  him  old  before  his  time,  and  that  he  would 
be  glad  of  rest.  Ealph  Taylor  was  an  old  man  at  the 
time  of  his  consecration ;  having  taken  his  B.A.  degree  at 
Trinity  College,  Oxford,  in  1670,  he  must  have  been  at 
least  seventy.  He  had  been  rector  of  Stoke  Severn  for 
some  years  before  the  Eevolution,  when  he  refused  to 
take  the  oaths  and  was  deprived  in  1690.  Like  many 
Nonjurors  he  went  abroad,  joining  his  lost  sovereign.  He 
1  See  supra,  pp.  198-203. 


312  THE  NONJURORS 

was  for  some  time  chaplain  to  the  English  Churchmen  at 
the  Court  of  St.  Germains.  There  he  came  into  contact 
with  Denis  Granville,  the  deprived  Dean  of  Durham  ; 
and  when  Dean  Granville  died  at  Paris,  in  1703,  Dr. 
Taylor  officiated  at  his  funeral.  The  only  use  he  appears 
to  have  made  of  his  very  brief  episcopate  was  to  per- 
form an  act  which  he  had  much  better  have  left  undone. 
He  was  induced  to  consecrate  two  bishops,  by  his  sole 
authority,  and  without  the  assistance  or  approval  of  the 
regular  Nonjurors,  and  thus  commenced  a  short-lived 
irregular  succession,  as  will  be  duly  described  in  a  future 
page.  This  was  in  1722,  and  he  died  in  December  the 
same  year. 

The  Usagers  quickly  followed  with  a  consecration  on 
their  side ;  but  they  were  reduced  to  such  straits  that 
Collier  and  Brett  were  obliged  to  call  in  the  aid  of  a 
Scotch  bishop,  Archibald  Campbell,  and  on  November  2-3, 
1722,  the  three  joined  in  consecrating  John  Griffin  to  the 
episcopate. 

John  Griffin  (1680-1731)  was  born  at  Towcester,  in 

Northants,   where  his  father  was   a   surgeon.     He    was 

educated  at  the  neighbouring  grammar  school  of  Green's 

Norton,  and  proceeded  thence  to  Merton  College,  Oxford, 

in  L696.    He  was  ordained  deacon  in  1702,  priest  in  1704, 

was  curate  of  Compton  in  Kent  for  about  two  years,  and 

i  ttled  at  Sarsden,'near  Chipping  Norton,  where  he 

was  curate  to  a  Mr.  Vernon;  and  in  1709  he  was  also 

made  lecturer  of  Churchill,  within  half  a  mile  of  Sarsden. 

In  1715  he  refused  the   oaths,  quitted  both  posts,  and 

became  chaplain  to  Lord  Plymouth.  Hewent  in  1728 'to 

take  care  of  the  congregation  at  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,' 

:i'  thai    time  a   bishop;   and   among   the  ordina- 

cecorded  in  the  Rawlinson  MSB.  we  find  '  William 

Pothergill  ordained  Deacon  a1  Newcastle-upon-Tyne  by 


JOHN   GEIFFIN — HENBY  DOUGHTY  313 

Mr.  John  Griffin.'  In  1730  'he  was  obliged  to  remove 
for  his  health's  sake,'  so  he  returned  to  Sarsden  and 
remained  there,  '  at  the  seat  of  Sir  David  Walter,  Bart.,' 
until  his  death,  July  8,  1731.  He  was  buried  in  the 
chancel  of  Churchill.1  An  obituary  notice  in  the  Daily 
Post,  September  25,  1731,  says  that  '  he  lived  retired,  was 
an  excellent  scholar,  and  remarkable  for  his  singular 
modesty  and  exemplary  life  and  conversation,  which 
captivated  the  affections  of  all  that  had  the  happiness 
to  know  him.'  "When  he  became  a  bishop  he  joined 
Collier,  Brett,  and  other  Nonjuring  prelates  in  their  cor- 
respondence with  the  Eastern  Church,  and  his  signature 
'  Johannes  Anglo-Britannise  Episcopus,'  appears  in  all 
the  later  letters.2 

The  next  consecration  was  on  the  part  of  the  Non- 
Usagers,  and  was  performed  by  four  Scotch  bishops,  who, 
unlike  Campbell  and  Gadderar,  had  no  particular  con- 
nection with  the  English  Nonjurors.  Thinking,  perhaps, 
that  some  apology  was  needed  (as  it  certainly  was)  for 
acting  outside  their  province,  without  the  co-operation, 
as  in  other  cases,  of  any  bishop  belonging  to  the  English 
Nonjurors,  they  explained  in  the  Apographum  that  they 
had  acted  because  '  most  of  their  dearest  brethren  and 
colleagues  in  the  Episcopal  College  among  the  Britons 
had  fallen  asleep  in  the  Lord,  and  the  very  few  who 
survived  were  all  but  worn  out  by  manifold  cares,  by 
diseases  and  by  the  weight  of  old  age.' 3  The  new  bishop 
was  Henry  Doughty  (1662-1730),  son  of  Henry  Doughty, 
rector  (?)   of   Elton,  in  the  diocese  of  Durham ;  he  was 

1  Most  of  this  information  is  derived  from  a  letter  (not  published)  of 
N.  Sturges  to  Dr.  Rawlinson,  dated  '  Sarsden,  June  13,  1733.' 

2  See  G.  Williams's  The  Orthodox  and  the  Nonjurors,  p.  124  onwards, 
and  Lathbury's  History  of  the  Nonjurors,  p.  353. 

3  The  full  apographum  is  given  in  a  very  interesting  paper,  entitled 
'  Fragmenta  Varia. — No.  1.  Pope  Innocent  XII.  and  the  Nonjuring  Con- 
secration,' in  The  Union  Revieiv,  vol.  i.  January  to  December  1863. 


314  THE  NONJUEOES 

educated  at  Durham  School,  and  graduated  at  St.  John's 
College,  Cambridge  (B.A.  1686,  M.A.  1689),  and  became 
curate  of  Bobin  Hood's  Bay,  Flamborough.  There  are 
three  interesting  letters  from  him  to  Mr.  Hope,  Dean 
Granville's  former  curate  at  Easington,  inserted  in 
Granville's  Bemains ;  they  are  dated  respectively  1709, 
1712,  and  1714,  and  show  that  the  writer  was  in  the 
full  swim  of  Nonjuring  life,  while  his  correspondent  was 
not.1  Doughty  and  Hope  would  be  known  to  one  another 
through  their  connection  with  Durham. 

Unlike  all  the  rest  of  the  Nonjuring  bishops,  Doughty 
was  consecrated,  not  in  a  Nonjuring  oratory  in  London, 
but  at  Edinburgh  on  March  30,  1725,  by  John  Fullarton 
(Bishop  of  Edinburgh),  Arthur  Miller,  William  Irvine, 
and  David  Fairbairn,  bishops,  and  the  Apographum  says, 
they  'had  taken  upon  them  the  responsibility  of  this 
consecration,  at  the  earnest  request  of  Bps.  Spinckes 
and  Collier.'  Bishop  Doughty  died  on  July  14,  1730,  and 
his  death  is  thus  noticed  in  the  Grub  Street  Journal, 
'  Wednesday,  July  15.  Yesterday  died  in  the  69th  year  of 
his  age  the  Kevd*  Mr.  Doughty,  a  Nonjuring  Clergyman. 
He  was  a  gentleman  eminently  distinguished  for  all  those 
good  qualities,  which  make  a  man  an  ornament  to  his 
profession,  and  was  deservedly  loved  and  esteemed  by  all 
who  knew  hiin.' 

The  next  bishop  was  a  more  notable  man,  '  John 
Blackbourne  consecrated  at  Grey's  Inne  by  Mr.  Spinckes, 
Gandy  and  Doughty  on  Ascension  Day,  1725  in  the 
presence  of  Heneago,  Earl  of  Winohilsea,  Mr.  John 
.,  Jos.  Hall,  Sir  Thos.  L'Estrange,  Bart.,  Mr. 
Tho.  Martyn,  and  Mr.  W;n.  Bowyer.' 

John  Blackboume  (1683-1741)  graduated  from  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge,  and  after  refusing  the  Abjuration 
'  Bm  Remains  of  Denis  Qrarwille  (Surtees  s. .<.•.).  ii.  'J">i    I. 


JOHN  BLACKBOUENE  315 

Oath  of  1715,  became  a  corrector  of  the  press  for 
"William  Bowyer,  and  was  '  one  of  the  most  accurate  of 
any  that  ever  took  upon  him  that  laborious  employ.' l 
But  he  also  published  literary  work  on  his  own  account, 
culminating  in  an  edition  of  the  Works  of  Francis 
Bacon,  an  ambitious  undertaking  which  professed  to  be 
the  first  complete  edition  ever  issued  in  England ;  and,  as 
already  noted,  he  was  probably  the  writer  of  that  im- 
portant pamphlet,  '  Mr.  Collier's  "  Desertion  Discussed,"  ' 
and  the  '  Historical  Account '  of  the  rise  of  the  Usages 
controversy.  If  so,  he  must  have  been  living  or  staying 
at  Worcester  at  the  time,  for  that  document  is  dated 
'Worcester,'  1719.  But  his  permanent  home  was  London, 
where  he  officiated  at  the  oratory  in  Gray's  Inn,  known 
as  '  Mr.  Blackbourne's  Chapel.'  He  was  the  last  of 
the  Nonjuring  bishops  who  held  out  against  the  Usages, 
continuing  to  officiate  according  to  the  use  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church  until  his  death  in  1741.  He  took  a  leading 
part  in  a  meeting  about  the  Usages  in  1731,  which  for 
the  time  prevented  what  may  be  called  the  surrender  of 
the  Non-Usagers.  An  obituary  notice  of  Blackbourne, 
taken  from  the  MSS.  of  Eichard  Bowes,  D.D.,  is  inserted 
in  Nichols's  'Literary  Anecdotes,'  which,  after  having 
mentioned  the  facts  noted,  gives  the  following  interesting 
anecdote : 

This  good  man  for  several  years  has  been  a  Nonjuring 
Bishop  equal  to  most  of  our  bench.  I  waited  on  him  often  in 
Little  Britain,  where  he  lived  almost  lost  to  the  world,  and  hid 
amongst  old  books.  One  day,  before  dinner,  he  went  to  his 
bureau  and  took  out  a  paper.  It  was  a  copy  of  the  testimonial 
sent  to  King  James  (as  he  called  him),  signed  by  his  Lordship 
( Winchelsea)  and  two  others  (I  think)  in  his  behalf.  He  after- 
wards shewed  me  the  commission  for  his  consecration.  Upon 
this  I  begged  his  blessing,  which  he  gave  me  with  the  fervent 

1  Nichols's  Literary  Anecdotes  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  i.  252. 


316  THE  NONJURORS 

Be  il  and  devotion  of  a  primitive  Bishop.  I  asked  him  if  I  was 
so  happy  as  to  belong  to  his  diocese?  His  answer  was  (I 
thought)  very  remarkable  :  '  Dear  friend  '  (said  he)  '  we  leave 
the  sees  open,  that  the  gentlemen  who  now  unjustly  possess 
them,  upon  the  restoration,  may,  if  they  please,  return  to  their 
duty,  and  be  continued.  We  content  ourselves  with  full  epis- 
copal power  as  suffragans.'  ' 

Blackbourne  died  at  Islington,  and  was  buried  in 
Islington  Churchyard,  where  his  epitaph  (a  long  one) 
describes  him  as  '  Pontificorum  seque  ac  Novatorum 
Malleus,'  which  implies  that  he  wrote  both  against 
papists  and  Protestant  Dissenters. 

Another  consecration  on  the  Non-Usagers'  side 
quickly  followed  that  of  Mr.  Blackbourne.  On  St. 
Barnabas's  Day  (June  11),  1725,  'Mr.  Henry  Hall 
[1672-1731]  was  consecrated  in  Mr.  Blackbourne's 
Chapell  in  Grey's  Inne  by  Kev.  Mr.  Spinckes,  Gandy, 
Doughty  and  Blackbourne ;  present,  Jos.  Hall,  John 
Creyke,  Wm.  Law,  Mr.  Geo.  Bew,  Mr.  Wm,  Bowyer, 
Tho.  Martyn,  and  Mr.  Brewster.'  The  new  bishop  was 
trained  in  Nonjuring  traditions,  for  he  was  the  son  of 
Thomas  Hall,  rector  of  Castle  Camps,  who  had  refused 
the  oaths  at  the  Eevolution  ;  and  both  he  and  his  brother, 
Joseph  Hall,  followed  their  father's  example  and  became 
Nonjurors.  As  a  member  of  St.  John's  College,  Cam- 
bridge, ho  would  see  the  Nonjuring  element  well  repre- 
Bented.  Ee  died  in  1731,  and  the  following  account  is 
gives  of  him  in  the  Evening  Post: 

Nov.  25,  1731  was  decently  interred  at  the  West-end  of  S* 
James's  ohur-yard  Westminster  the  Corpse  of  the  Late  Rev* 
M  Henry  II. ill,  formerly  of  B.  John's  Col.  Cambridge,  who 
bad  travelled  very  much  in  foreign  parts,  from  whenoe  he  was 
I  nit  lately  returned.  He  was  an  accomplished  Gent,  of  singular 
learning,  modesty  and  other  valuable  qualifications,  which  in 
other  times  mighl    have   rendered   him  an  Ornament  to  tho 

1  Ni. J  I    .  i.  85S  I. 


H.  HALL— T.  BRETT,   THE   YOUNGER         317 

highest  station  in  his  Profession.  He  was  justly  lamented  by- 
all  who  enjoy'd  the  happiness  of  his  acquaintance. 

The  writer  evidently  did  not  know  that  he  was  a  Non- 
juring  bishop,  which  is  not  surprising,  as  such  bishops 
were  addressed,  even  by  Nonjurors,  simply  as  '  Mr.  So- 
and-so.' 

It  is  somewhat  strange  that  little  or  nothing  should 
be  known  about  the  next  bishop,  who  bore  a  famous 
name,  and  belonged  to  a  family  which  preserved  the 
Nonjuring  traditions  after  they  had  nearly  died  out  else- 
where. Thomas  Brett,  the  younger,  was  consecrated  by 
his  father,  Thomas  Brett,  the  elder,  John  Griffin  and 
Archibald  Campbell,  April  9,  1727  ;  he  was,  of  course,  on 
the  Usagers'  side,  and  took  part  with  his  father  in  one 
consecration.  But  he  must  have  died  early ;  for,  whereas 
we  hear  much  about  his  brother  Nicholas  (who  was 
chaplain  to  Sir  Robert  Cotton,  and  afterwards  lived  in  the 
family  house  of  the  Bretts,  Spring  Grove,  and  is  described 
as  '  a  man  universally  esteemed  for  his  great  learning, 
general  knowledge,  and  extensive  benevolence  '),1  we  hear 
nothing  of  Thomas.  In  a  biographical  notice  of  the 
elder  Thomas  Brett  it  is  said  that  '  he  left  a  widow  and 
one  surviving  son  ' ;  as  Nicholas  certainly  survived  him 
for  many  years,  dying  in  1776,  it  would  seem  that 
Thomas  died  before  his  father. 

The  next  consecration  was  that  of  a  man  who  in  com- 
mon gratitude  ought  never  to  be  forgotten  by  those  who 
take  an  interest  in  the  history  of  the  Nonjurors  ;  for  more 
than  any  other  man  he  has  supplied  original,  contem- 
porary,   and    trustworthy   information   which   is    simply 

1  See  Monuments  of  Kent,  by  Philip  Parsons,  minister  of  Wye,  p.  4. 
See  also  Letters  relating  to  tlie  State  of  tlie  Church  of  England  with  respect 
to  the  Roman  Church,  both  in  her  Doctrine  and  Practice,  by  Dr.  Brett, 
edited  by  T.  Bowdler,  1850.     There  Nicholas  occurs,  but  not  Thomas. 


318  THE  NONJURORS 

invaluable  for  that  history.     The  reader  of  the  preceding 
pages  will  have  already  anticipated  the  name. 

Richard  Bawlinson  (1690-1755)  was  the  son  of  Sir 
Thomas  Rawlinson,  a  London  citizen,  a  vintner,  who 
was  Lord  Mayor  in  1705,  and  had  been  knighted  twenty 
years  previously.  Richard  was  the  fourth  son  in  a  family 
of  fifteen  children  ;  but  his  father  was  probably  a  rich 
man  who  could  afford  to  give  all  his  children  a  good 
education.  Richard  passed  from  St.  Paul's  School  to 
Eton,  and  thence  to  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  where  he 
entered  as  a  commoner  in  March  1707-8.  His  father 
died  in  November  1708,  when  he  became  a  gentleman- 
commoner  and  graduated  in  1711.  While  still  an  under- 
graduate he  began  to  develop  his  taste  for  antiquities  and 
curious  literature,  for  as  early  as  1709  Hearne  refers  to 
him  in  connection  with  these  topics  ;  and  he  became  so 
well  known  that  at  the  early  age  of  twenty-four  he  was 
elected  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society.  All  through  his 
life  his  tastes  seem  to  have  been  antiquarian  and  topo- 
graphical more  than  ecclesiastical ;  so,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  this  book,  he  will  not  require  so  long  a  notice  as 
his  priceless  services  to  the  subject  before  us  might  seem 
to  demand.  Being  a  staunch  Nonjuror  and  Jacobite  he 
did  not,  of  course,  seek  Holy  Orders  in  the  Established 
Church,  but  he  was  ordained  deacon  by  Collier  on  St. 
Matthias's  Day,  1716,  and  priest  on  the  following  Sunday. 
He  concealed,  however,  his  clerical  office,  dressing  as  a 
layman,  and  requesting  his  friends  not  to  address  him 
as  '  reverend.'  He  travelled  largely  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  following  his  favourite  pursuits  until  1726,  when 
his  cltltr  brother,  Thomas,  a  man  of  kindred  tastes  and 
principles,  died ;  then  he  settled  in  London,  living,  it  is 
said,  is  a  garrel  in  Gray's  Inn.  The  oratory  is  G 
Inn  is  sometimes  called  « Dr.  Rawlinson's  Chapel,'  but 


EICHAED  EAWLINSON  319 

more  frequently  '  Mr.  Blackbourne's,'  the  latter  being  the 
regular  minister.  It  was  on  the  Festival  of  the  Annun- 
ciation (March  25),  1728,  that  Kawlinson,  or,  as  he  him- 
self puts  it,  £xxx  xxxxxxxx  was  consecrated  by 
Mr.  Gandy,  Doughty  and  Blackbourne,  in  Mr.  Gandy's 
Chapell,  in  presence  of  Mr.  Bichard  Eussell,  John 
Lindsay,  Kob.  Gordoun,  Thos.  Martyn,  Eich.  Tireman, 
Tho.  Peirce,  Tho.  Gyles  and  John  Martyn,  junr.'  He 
was  a  Non-Usager,  and  joined  in  a  declaration  against 
the  Usages ;  but  he  took  little  or  no  part  in  Nonjuring 
affairs,  and  as  he  says  that  he  had  been  ■  over-prevailed 
to  be  more  public  '  than  he  desired,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  he  would  have  preferred  not  to  have  been  made 
a  bishop  at  all.  The  collecting  of  rare  editions,  rare 
MSS.,  coins,  seals,  quaint  inscriptions  and  epitaphs — 
in  short,  the  pursuits  of  a  virtuoso — were  more  to  his 
mind.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered  that  it 
is  to  this  same  inquiring  mind  applied  to  other  subjects 
that  we  owe  vast  stores  of  information  respecting  the 
Nonjurors.  For  Dr.  Eawlinson  was  quite  as  much  in- 
terested in  contemporary  matters  with  which  he  was, 
or  had  been,  connected.  Thus,  his  very  first  literary 
project  seems  to  have  been  a  Life  of  Anthony  Wood, 
whose  memory  was  still  fresh  at  Oxford  when  Eawlinson 
went  into  residence ;  he  made  great  preparations  for 
writing  a  history  of  Eton  College,  collected  materials  for 
a  continuation  of  "Wood's  '  Athenae  Oxonienses,'  which,  of 
course,  would  soon  have  brought  him  to  his  own  con- 
temporaries, and  also  for  a  History  of  the  Nonjurors.1 
Happily  the  materials  for  both  the  latter  works  are  still 
extant  in  manuscript,  and  have  been  largely  drawn  upon 
for  the  composition  of  the  present  volume.  But  it  is  not 
only  for  his  own  manuscripts  that  students  of  Nonjuring 
1  See  Reliquia  Heamiance,  iii.  160. 


320  THE  NONJURORS 

history  are  indebted  to  Dr.  Eawlinson.  To  him  also 
they  owe  the  preservation  of  the  Hearne  manuscripts,  a 
treasury  which  has  as  yet  been  only  partially  unlocked, 
but  which,  even  as  far  as  it  has  gone,  is  priceless.  For  it 
wbb  Rawlinson  who  bought  all  Hearne's  Collections  and 
diaries  of  the  widow  of  Hilkiah  Bedford  for  1051.,  Hearne 
having  left  them  to  Thomas  Bedford,  the  son  of  Hilkiah  ; 
and,  as  Eawlinson  left  all  his  manuscripts  to  the  Bodleian 
Library,  Hearne  returned,  as  it  were,  after  his  death  to 
the  place  where  he  had  spent  so  much  of  his  life.  Dr. 
Eawlinson  was  in  some  respects  eccentric,  and  if  it  were 
the  object  of  this  book  to  make  people  laugh  it  would 
be  easy  to  give  specimens,  more  or  less  authentic,  of  his 
eccentricity.  But  it  would  be  very  ungracious  in  one 
who  owes  so  much  to  him  to  repeat  the  idle  tales,  none 
of  which,  however,  are  inconsistent  with  his  character  as 
a  Christian  and  a  Churchman.  Eawlinson's  information  on 
all  subjects,  including  that  with  which  we  are  now  specially 
concerned,  is  thoroughly  to  be  relied  on,  and  that  is  the 
main  point.  It  will  suffice  to  add  that  some  time  after 
the  death  of  his  elder  brother,  Thomas,  he  removed  from 
Gray's  Inn  to  London  House  (so  called  because  it  had 
once  been  a  residence  of  the  bishops  of  London),  in 
Aldersgate,  but  died  at  Islington  on  April  6,  1755,  and 
was  buried  in  St.  Giles's  Church,  Oxford — Oxford  being  a 
fitting  resting-place  for  one  who  had  been  a  great  bene- 
factor to  the  University  while  living,  and  a  still  greater 
one  by  the  bequests  which  he  left  to  it  at  his  death. 

The  next  bishop  was  a  man  of  high  type,  both  intel- 
lectually and  spiritually.  George  Smith  (1698-1766)  was 
a  native  of  Durham.  His  father,  John  Smith,  a  pre- 
bendary  of  Durham,  was  one  of  eleven  brothers,  all  of 
whom  rose  to  more  or  Less  eminence,  especially  Jos<  ph, 

Who    was   ;i    noted     PrOTOSt   of    Quivll's    College,    Oxford  ; 


GEOEGE  SMITH  321 

his  mother's  maiden  name  was  Cooper,  and  her  sister 
married  Hilkiah  Bedford ;  his  godfather  was  the  well- 
known  Sir  George  Wheler,  after  whom  he  v/as  named. 
He  was  educated  at  Westminster,  living  with  his  uncle, 
Hilkiah  Bedford,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  kept  a  flourishing 
boarding-house  for  Westminster  boys.  Thence  he  pro- 
ceeded in  1709  to  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  but 
removed  in  1711  to  Queen's  College,  Oxford,  where  his 
uncle,  Joseph  Smith,  was  then  fellow.  He  next  became 
a  student  at  the  Inner  Temple ;  but  in  1715  his  father 
died,  leaving  him  a  good  fortune,  and  in  1717  he  bought 
New  Burn  Hall,  near  Durham,  where  he  resided  as  a 
country  gentleman.  He  married  his  cousin,  Christian, 
eldest  daughter  of  Hilkiah  Bedford,  by  whom  he  had  a 
numerous  family,  and  who  survived  him  for  twenty-five 
years.  When  he  became  a  Nonjuror  and  when  he  received 
Holy  Orders  is  not  known ;  his  name  does  not  occur  in 
Rawlinson's  list  of  Nonjuring  ordinations.  Indeed,  I  find 
no  notice  of  him  in  this  connection  until  St.  Stephen's 
Day,  1728,  when  he  was  consecrated  a  bishop  on  the  Non- 
usagers'  side  by  Gaudy,  Blackbourne  and  Rawlinson.  His 
valuable  writings  do  not  bear  directly  upon  the  Nonjuring 
question,  and  therefore  do  not  belong  to  this  chapter, 
with  the  exception  of  a  tract  entitled  '  A  Defence  of  the 
Communion  Office  of  the  Church  of  England,'  that  is,  as 
against  the  New  Communion  Office  of  the  Usagers  ;  but 
his  most  valuable  contribution  to  the  Usages  controversy 
was  his  attempt  to  end  it.  To  him,  on  the  one  side, 
and  Dr.  Brett  on  the  other,  is  mainly  due  the  partial 
reunion  of  the  two  sections  of  Nonjurors  in  1731,  and 
he  and  the  two  Bretts  joined  in  the  consecration  of  a 
bishop  who  represented  both  sides  in  that  year.1     Some 

1  There  are  some  interesting  letters  (MS.)  preserved  in  the  Library  of 
St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  from  the  Scotch  bishop,  John  Gillan,  to 


322  THE  NONJURORS 

kfter  he  became  a  bishop  he  wrote  two  treatises  on 
a  subject  in  which  both  sections  of  the  Nonjurors  were 
Interested — the    sacrificial    character   of   the   Eucharist, 

irings  swords  with  no  less  an  antagonist  than  the 
mighty  Dr.  Waterland.  The  first  is  entitled  'An  Episto- 
lary Dissertation  Addressed  to  the  Clergy  of  Middlesex 
wherein  the  Doctrine  of  St.  Austin  concerning  the  Chris- 
tian Sacrifice  is  set  in  a  true  light.  By  way  of  Reply  to 
Dr.  Waterland 's  late  Charge  to  them.  By  a  Divine 
of  the  University  of  Cambridge  (1739).'  He  is  charac- 
teristically courteous  to  his  opponent.  'Our  Doctrine,' 
he  writes,  '  of  Sacrifice  was,  in  the  dispute  between  the 
late  Dr.  Hickes  and  his  opponents,  formerly  cryed  down 
as  Popish  ;  of  this  Imputation  Dr.  Waterland  has  been  so 
just  as  to  clear  it,  for  which  we  cannot  but  return  him 
our  thanks  ;  '  and  he  ends :  '  I  hope  I  have  said  nothing 
which  can  give  your  worthy  Archdeacon,  whose  uncommon 
learning  and  merit  I  highly  reverence,  any  reasonable 
offence  :  and  if  this  Controversy  is  to  be  continued  I  hope 
it  will  be  carried  on  in  a  friendly  and  Christian  manner.' 
In  connection  with  the  same  great  divine  Smith  published 
'  An  Historical  Account  of  the  Primitive  Invocation  or 
Prayer  for  a  Blessing  upon  the  Eucharistic  Elements.  .  . 
A  Confirmation  of  some  things  mentioned  in  the  learned 
Dr.  Waterland's  Review,  and  by  way  of  Supplement  to 
it.  In  a  Letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  1740.' 
The  controversy  was  ended  by  the  death  of  Dr.  Waterland 
in  the  year  in  which  this  letter  was  published.  Bishop 
George  Smith  died  on  November  4,  1750,  and  was  buried 
at    St.    Oswald's,   Durham,   where    there   is    an    English 

ptira  "ii  his  tomb  in  the  churchyard,  and  a  Latin 

Smith,  in  which  Gillan  oongratolataa  Smith  on  his  efforts  to  bring 
about  reunion:  'God  will  certainly  reward  you  for  contributin 
maritorion  ■  ■  work.    D.  in  the  peacemakers, '  and  so  forth. 


EOBEET  GOEDON  323 

one  on  a  monument  to  him  in  the  church.  He  will  meet 
us  again  as  a  learned  writer  and  editor  of  works  not  con- 
nected with  the  Nonjuring  question. 

Of  the  bishop  who  represented  the  union  effected  by 
the  Christian  efforts  of  Smith  and  Brett,  all  that  appears 
to  be  known  is  that  his  name  was  Timothy  Mawman, 
that  he  graduated  from  Queen's  College,  Oxford,  in  1705, 
that  he  was  consecrated  in  July  1731,  and  that  he  joined 
with  the  elder  Brett  and  Smith  in  consecrating  the  next 
and  last  bishop  of  the  regular  succession  among  the  Non- 
jurors on  St.  Barnabas's  Day,  1741.  Thus  ten  years  elapsed 
before  another  consecration  followed  that  of  Mawman,  a 
fact  which  in  itself  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  party 
was  dying  out,  for  in  the  preceding  ten  years  there  had 
been  no  less  than  nine  consecrations.  But  the  new  bishop 
survived  for  many  years,  and  heroically  kept  together  the 
last  congregation  of  regular  Nonjurors  after  the  rest  had 
melted  away. 

Bobert  Gordon,  or  Gordoun  (d.  1779),  was  a  Scotchman 
by  birth,  and  was  brought  up  in  what  he  calls  the  '  Scottish 
Nonjurant  Church,'  but  from  his  early  years  he  had  been 
connected  with  the  English  Church,  and  that  connection 
was  strengthened  by  his  marriage.  We  gain  a  curious 
glimpse  of  his  early  years  from  the  interesting  collection 
of  letters  entitled  'The  Lyon  in  Mourning,'  for  the 
preservation  of  which  we  are  indebted  to  Bobert  Forbes, 
Bishop  of  Boss  and  Caithness,  and  for  their  publication  to 
the  Scottish  History  Society.  We  learn  from  these  that 
he  was  probably  educated  at  Durham,  for  he  told  Bishop 
Forbes  in  1769  that 

he  remembered  well  that,  when  eleven  or  twelve  years  of  age, 
he  had  been  in  the  quire  at  Durham  with  a  crowd  of  boys, 
when  Lord  Crew  was  bishop,  and  he  then  saw  several  young 
folks  confirmed,  but  that  he  did  not  remember  that  he  himself 
had  kneeled  down   and   received  that  benefit.      He  therefore 


324  THE  NONJURORS 

begged  that  to  remove  all  doubts  and  scruples  from  his  mind  I 

make  up  that  defect.     I  agreed,  and  to-morrow  morning 

ooordingly  appointed  before  breakfast  for  that  purpose  in 

his  own  bed  chamber,  none  to  be  present  but  Mrs.  Forbes  only.1 

In  later  years  he  was  connected  with  Durham  through 
his  marriage  with  Elizabeth,  younger  daughter  of  Hilkiah 
Bedford,  whose  eldest  daughter  married  Bishop  George 
Smith,  of  Burn  Hall,  near  Durham.  Gordon  frequently 
visited  the  Smiths  at  Burn  Hall,  on  his  way  between 
London  and  Scotland,  when  he  visited  his  friend  Forbes. 
He  refers  more  than  once  to  '  Sister  Smith  '  and  '  my  late 
brother-in-law,  Thomas  Bedford,'  and  wre  gather  that 
young  Mr.  Smith,  his  wife's  nephew,  helped  him  in  his 
ministrations  in  London.  His  home  was  in  Theobald's 
Koad,  and  there  he  ministered  to  a  little  congregation  up 
to  the  time  of  his  death.  His  oratory  was  probably  in 
the  immediate  neighbourhood.  Of  his  ministrations  there 
we  learn  something  from  the  same  Bishop  Forbes,  who 
describes  vividly  in  a  •  Journal '  a  visit  which  he  and 
Mrs.  Forbes  paid  to  London  in  17G4  : 

After  dinner  we  drove  to  Bishop  Gordoun's,  Theobald's 
Row  [sic],  who,  being  abroad  Mrs.  Gordoun  informed  us  where 
we  were  to  lodge ;  upon  which  we  wheeled  about  to  Mr. 
Faloonar'a  house,  where  Bishop  Gordoun  favoured  us  with  a 
visit  in  the  evening  most  kindly  welcoming  us  to  London,  and 
telling  us  that  Mrs.  Gordoun  would  call  for  us  next  morning  to 
conduct  us  to  his  chapel.  Sunday,  Sep.  30. — Mrs.  Gordoun 
called  for  us  in  the  morning  and  took  us  along  with  her  to 
Prayers;  and  sorry  was  I  to  Bee  the  Buffering  Nonjurant  clergy 
so  poorly  attended  in  England ;  only  about  30  or  40  in  .B}>. 
Gordoun's  chapel.  Sunday,  Oct,  7. — I  performed  Matins  and 
for  Mr.  Gordoun,  and  was  at  the  same  Altar  with  him, 
where  only  about  80  persons  oommunioated.  S.  Luke's  Day. — 
I    read    Matins   for   Bp.  Gordoun  (when  he  informed  me,  upon 

asking,  that  there  were  none  of  the  same  character,  but  himself 
only  in  England),  he  performing  the  2nd  servioe  at  the  Altar. 

1  Lyon  in  Mourning,  ill-  281« 


EOBEET  GOEDON  325 

Then  be  tells  us  that  Gordoun  omitted  the  words 
'  militant '  and 

made  this  great  addition,  all  sick  and  distressed  Persons  'par- 
ticularly such  as  may  be  suffering  in  the  cause  of  Truth  and 
Righteousness,  &c.  and  added  Exiles  to  Prisoners  and  Captives, 
made  a  long  pause  after  these  words,  '  Departed  this  Life  in 
thy  Faith  and  Fear,'  during  which  he  and  his  people,  with 
hands  and  eyes  lifted  up  unto  heaven  were  commemorating 
mentally  such  of  the  faithful  departed  as  they  should  judge 
most  proper  at  the  time  ;  and  in  the  prayer  of  Consecration,  he 
also  made  a  long  pause  after  these  words,  '  Hear  us,  0  Merciful 
Father,  ive  most  humbly  beseech  Thee,'  in  order  to  introduce 
mentally  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  upon  the 
elements  of  Bread  and  Wine.  Immediately  after  the  Prayer  of 
Consecration  he  used  the  Oblatory  Prayer.1 

Bishop' Gordon  saw  with  great  grief  the  gradual  drop- 
ping off  of  adherents  to  the  Nonjuring  cause.  He  was  an 
intimate  friend  and  frequent  correspondent  of  Thomas 
Wagstaffe,  the  younger,  who  held  the  rather  anomalous 
office  of  Protestant  chaplain  to  the  Boman  Catholic 
Prince,  Charles  Edward,  and  his  sorrow  at  Wagstaffe's 
death  in  1771  is  heightened  by  the  rumour  that  he  was  to 
be  succeeded  by  young  Mr.  Smith,  Mrs.  Gordon's  nephew, 
who  was  a  sort  of  assistant  curate  to  his  uncle.2  It  was 
a  still  greater  grief  to  him  to  hear  about  the  same  time 
that  the  Bretts  of  Spring  Grove,  hitherto  the  staunchest 
of  Nonjurors,  were  about  to  desert  the  cause,3  and  he  con- 
trasts their  conduct  with  that  of  the  Bowdlers,  who  still 
remained  faithful ;  Bishop  Forbes  was  called  in  to  the 
rescue,  and  made  an  ineffectual  journey  into  Kent  to  try 
and  persuade  Nicholas  Brett  to  adhere  to  the  '  suffering 
remnant.'     Poor  Bishop  Gordon  seems  now  to  have  felt 

1  See  Journals  of  Episcopal  Visitations  of  Robert  Forbes,  Bishop  of 
Ross  and  Caithness,  with  Memoir,  by  J.  B.  Craven,  the  Editor,  188G, 
pp.  30-34. 

3  See  Lyon  in  Mourning,  iii.  293. 

3  Ibid.  iii.  334. 


326  THE  NONJURORS 

that  there  was  nothing  left  for  him  but  to  wrap  his  robes 
around  him  and  die  gracefully;  on  March  5,  1777,  he 
solemnly  commended  his  flock  to  the  Scotch  Nonjuring 
bishops  in  a  touching  letter  addressed  to  '  The  Primus 
and  his  Colleagues  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  '  : 

Considering  my  age  and  infirmities  I  feel  anxiety  to  provide 
for  the  spiritual  comfort  and  security  of  the  poor  orphans  of 
the  anti-revolution  Church  of  England,  whom  I  shall  leave 
behind  me ;  it  is  therefore  my  earnest  desire  and  request  to 
your  paternities,  that  you  would  vouchsafe  to  take  the  poor 
minished  remnant  under  the  wings  of  your  paternal  protection, 
receiving  them  into  full  Communion  as  sound  members  of  the 
Catholick  Church,  by  such  sy nodical  act  as  your  paternities 
in  your  wisdom  shall  deem  meet ;  wherein,  right  Reverend 
brethren,  you  will  afford  the  highest  satisfaction  and  comfort 
to  your  affec.  brother  and  devoted  servant  in  Christ. 

He  must  have  derived  a  crumb  of  comfort  from  the 
following  reply  of  the  Scotch  prelates : 

We  hereby  declare  upon  every  proper  occasion  our  willing- 
ness to  take  under  our  care  and  tuition ;  and  to  receive  into 
full  communion  with  us,  in  all  offices  of  Christian  Communion 
and  fellowship,  as  members  of  Christ's  Mystical  Body,  all  who 
are  in  communion  with  you;  and  we  promise  they  shall  be 
entitled  to  the  same  privileges,  in  the  participation  of  the  Holy 
Mysteries,  and  all  other  means  of  grade  dispensed  by  the 
bishops  and  ministers  of  our  church,  equally  with  those 
under  our  pastoral  care  in  this  our  ancient  kingdom.1 

Bishop  Gordon  was  from  first  to  last  not  only  a 
launch  and  uncompromising  Nonjuror,  but  a  most 
enthusiastic  Jacobite,  quite  undaunted  by  the  abortive 
attempt  ol  1715,  and  ready  to  the  last  to  join  in  any 
ire  for  the  restoration  of  the  ancient  line.  He  kept 
up  a  constant  communication  with  the  Chevalier,  all  of 
whose  doings  he  reports  to  his  friend   Forbes,  calling 

1  Quoted  tram  the  MB. 'Kegisterol  the<  B   top  ,'  i.  87  30,  in 

./  of  ScutLu,  •  h  ni».  It.  90. 


ROBERT  GORDON  327 

hiin  '  The  lady  your  favourite,'  '  The  lady  our  friend,' 
'  Cousin  Peggie,'  '  Poor  Peggie.'  The  Bowdlers  were 
faithful  to  him  to  the  last ;  and  their  biographer,  another 
Bowdler,  worthy  of  his  descent,  writes  of  him : 

The  Right  Revd.  Robert  Gordon  died  in  November,  1779,  at  a 
very  advanced  age.  Bowdler  attended  him  with  the  unremitting 
kindness  which  was  due  to  his  father's  old  and  intimate  friend ; 
and  'never,'  said  he,  'was  I  witness  to  such  piety,  resignation, 
benevolence  and  true  politeness.  He  was  a  truly  primitive 
bishop,  a  tender  husband,  a  warm  friend,  and  a  true  gentleman  ; 
and  so  pleasing  in  his  manners  and  unexceptionable  in  his 
conduct,  that  in  spite  of  the  inconveniences  and  insults  to 
which  his  character  and  the  times  exposed  him,  he  lived 
unmolested  and  respected  by  all  who  knew  him.' l 

Not  quite  all.  Gordon,  like  all  men  who  hold  tenaciously 
unpopular  opinions,  had  his  enemies  as  well  as  his  friends, 
and  the  most  bitter  would  naturally  be  among  those  who 
had  once  held  the  same  opinions,  and  afterwards  aban- 
doned them.  Dr.  William  King  had  been  the  energetic 
leader  of  the  Jacobite  party  at  Oxford  up  to  the  accession 
of  George  III.,  and  then,  like  many  others,  abandoned  it. 
Such  tergiversation  would  be  sure  to  irritate  Gordon,  who 
adhered  all  the  closer  to  the  Stuarts  the  more  hopeless 
their  cause  seemed ;  and  as  William  King  was  a  man 
who  used  strong  language,  we  can  very  well  understand 
how  he  could  write  about  Gordon  in  very  different  terms 
from  those  of  John  Bowdler.2 

There  is  a  contemporary  notice  of  Gordon's  funeral  : 
*  1779,  last  week  of  November,  reverential  groups  were  as- 
sembled in  Theobald's  Road  to  witness  the  passing  to  the 
grave  of  the  last  Nonjuring  bishop  of  the  regular  succes- 
sion— Bishop  Gordon.' 3     Probably  his  burying-place  was 

1  Memoir  of  John  Bowdler,  with  some  account  of  1  hornets  Boicdler,  p.  82. 

2  See   Political  and  Literary  Anecdotes  of  His  Own  Times,  by    Dr. 
William  King,  Principal  of  St.  Mary  Hall,  Oxon.,  p.  191,  et  seq. 

3  See  London  in  the  Jacobite  Times,  ii.  352. 


328  THE  NONJUEOES 

the  same  as  that  in  which  Iiobert  Nelson  was  laid,  for  it 
was  in  the  vicinity,  and  was  much  used  by  Nonjurors. 


It  might  be  expected  that  after  the  death  of  Gordon, 
and  the  winding  up  of  affairs  by  the  transference  of  his 
charge  to  the  Scottish  bishops,  the  history  of  the  Non- 
jurors would  come  to  a  natural  end.  But  this  is  by  no 
means  the  case.  There  were  two  distinct  offshoots  of  the 
regular  Nonjuring  body,  both  of  which  arose  before  the 
consecration  of  Gordon,  while  one  of  them  survived  his 
death  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  Belonging  to  the  first 
were  three  bishops  ;  to  the  second  ten.  But,  without  any 
disrespect  either  to  the  individuals  or  to  their  episcopal 
claims,  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  these  prelates  stand 
quite  on  the  same  footing  as  the  rest.  For  this,  if  for 
no  other  reason.  The  regular  Nonjurors  were  most  strict 
about  the  consecration  of  their  bishops.  Three  bishops 
at  least  took  part  in  the  rite ;  it  wras  always  done  in  the 
presence  of  responsible  witnesses ;  the  acts  of  consecra- 
tion were  always  signed,  sealed,  properly  attested,  and 
carefully  preserved ;  and  a  regular  officer  was  formally 
appointed  as  keeper  of  Nonjuring  Church  registers.  But 
the  irregular  successions  were  each  through  one  bishop 
alone,  which  was  regarded  as  uncanonical  by  the  regular 
body;  nor  were  the  names  of  the  witnesses  (if  any) 
officially  chronicled  and  preserved.  The  first  irregular 
lion  originated  from  special  circumstances.  It  was 
made  in  order  to  meet  a  special  want  in  the  'plantations.' 
and  there  is  a  considerable  amount  of  mystery  about  it. 
The  second  arose  from  the  dissatisfaction  of  one  single 
man  (who,  bj  the  way,  whs  not  an  English  Nonjuror  at 
all)  with  the  extent  to  which  the  CJsagers  had  carried 
then-  return  to  primitive  usages,  and  who  made  this  new 


DETACHMENT  OF  LATEE  NONJUEOES       329 

division  in  order  to  advance  it  farther.  It  seems,  then, 
the  proper  course  to  make  these  two  offshoots  a  subject 
of  separate  treatment,  and  to  proceed  at  present  with  the 
history  of  the  regular  body,  passing  on  from  the  bishops 
to  the  other  clergy  and  laity  who  attached  themselves 
to  it. 

One  striking  contrast  between  the  earlier  and  later 
Nonjurors  was  that  the  latter  were  a  far  less  compact  and 
united  body,  and  had  less  of  the  esprit  de  corps  about 
them.  It  was  not  so  much  that  they  differed  from,  as 
that  they  were  detached  from,  one  another,  taking  each 
his  own  line  instead  of  working  together.  This  was,  no 
doubt,  in  part  owing  to  the  dispute  which  raged  within 
the  little  community  between  the  years  1717  and  1731, 
and  which  left  its  sting  behind  long  after  it  had  been 
patched  up  after  a  fashion.  But  there  was  another 
reason  which  is  noticed  by  Mr.  Hutton :  '  As  the  body 
came  to  have  less  and  less  relation  to  the  religious  life  of 
the  whole  nation,  it  became  more  and  more  literary,  anti- 
quarian, and  theological.' i  There  is  a  tone  of  despondency 
in  the  later  Nonjurors,  when  writing  about  their  cause, 
which  intimates  that  they  had  almost  despaired  of  its 
success,  and  that  all  they  could  do  was  to  liberate  their 
own  souls  by  giving  a  clear  testimony,  and  then  help  the 
general  cause  of  '  true  religion  and  sound  learning  '  as 
best  they  might.  The  faithful  remnant  was  becoming 
smaller  and  smaller,  and  there  was  no  tie  that  bound 
it  together  in  any  definite  way.  But  when  we  turn  to 
individuals  we  find  there  were  eminent  men  among  the 
later  Nonjurors  who  will  quite  bear  comparison  in  every 
way  with  any  that  could  be  selected  at  an  earlier  period. 
Let  us  begin  with  one  who  is,  perhaps,  the  best  known 
of  them  all. 

1  Social  England,  edited  by  H.  D.  Traill,  iv.  531-4. 


330  THE  NONJURORS 

William  Law  (1G8G-17G1)  was  a  man  who  could 
hardly  have  failed  to  take  a  foremost  place  in  any  religious 
community.  His  outer  life  was  very  uneventful.  He 
was  born  at  King's  Cliffe,  in  Northants,  where  his  father 
was  a  grocer;  went  as  a  sizar  to  Emmanuel  College, 
Cambridge,  in  1705  ;  was  ordained  deacon  and  elected 
fellow  of  his  college  in  1711 ;  lost  his  fellowship  on  the 
accession  of  George  I.  because  he  refused  to  take  the 
oaths;  after  a  period  of  unsettlement  found  a  home  in 
the  family  of  Mr.  Edward  Gibbon,  grandfather  of  the 
historian,  at  Putney,  first  as  tutor  to  the  second  Edward 
Gibbon,  the  historian's  father,  and  then  as  '  the  much- 
honoured  friend  and  spiritual  director  of  the  whole  family,' 
to  quote  the  words  of  the  third  Edward  Gibbon,  the 
historian  himself.1  In  1737  the  elder  Mr.  Gibbon  died, 
and  the  household  at  Putney  was  broken  up.  Law,  after 
another  period  of  restlessness,  retired  in  1740  to  his  native 
place,  and  remained  there  until  his  death  in  1761.  Two 
pious  ladies,  Mrs.  Hutcheson  and  Miss  Hester  Gibbon, 
daughter  of  his  patron,  placed  themselves  under  his 
spiritual  direction,  and  the  three  strove  to  live  lives  based 
on  a  literal  application  of  the  principles  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  as  adapted  to  modern  circumstances  by  Law 
himself  in  what  he  calls  his  '  two  practical  treatises.' 

In  his  remote  Northamptonshire  home  Law  was  quite 
out  of  the  main  stream  of  Nonjuring  life,  and  qud  Non- 
juror he  semis  there  to  have  stood  alone.  He  always, 
indeed,  had  his  little  knot  of  admiring  disciples — one 
might  almost  Bay  hero-worshippers — with  whom  his  won! 
was  law;  hut  with  one  exception,  and  that  a  doubtful 
one,  they  were   not    Nonjurors,   and   there   is   hardly  a 

passage  in  his  works  from  which,  unless  line  read  between 

IHngs,  i.  17,  in  Gil  I  'moons 

edited  bj  Lord  Sheffield,  17%.  ' 


WILLIAM  LAW  331 

the  lines,  it  could  be  gathered  that  he  was  a  Nonjuror 
himself.  Nor  could  it  be  gathered  by  the  casual  observer 
from  the  ordinary  course  of  his  life.  So  far  from  absent- 
ing himself  from  public  worship,  he  made  a  point  of 
attending  every  service  in  his  parish  church ;  and  in  the 
touching  regulations  which  he  drew  up  with  his  own 
hand  for  his  charity  schools,  his  almshouses,  and  his 
clerical  library  at  King's  Cliffe,  he  showed  the  utmost 
loyalty  to  that  Mother  Church  which  had  proved  but  a 
harsh  step-mother  to  him.  The  rector  of  King's  Cliffe 
for  the  time  being  was  always  to  be  a  trustee  for  his 
charities,  both  for  children  and  for  '  widows  and  ancient 
maidens.'  •  Every  boy  and  girl  at  their  going  out  of  the 
school  are  to  have  a  new  Bible,  and  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  distinct  from  it,  given  to  them.'  The  girls  (who 
were  his  peculiar  charge)  were  to  be  '  constant  at  church 
at  all  times  of  Divine  service,  as  well  on  the  week-days 
as  on  the  Sundays.'  '  They  must  always  go  to  church 
at  all  funerals,  and  placing  themselves  at  those  times 
together,  all  of  them  join  in  singing  the  psalm  that  shall 
then  be  appointed.'  He  composed  a  beautiful  little 
'  prayer  on  entering  church '  for  them,  and  at  his  request 
the  Psalms  were  always  sung  at  King's  Cliffe  Church. 

Nevertheless,  Law  had  more  sympathy  both  with  the 
Nonjuring  and  with  the  Jacobite  cause  than  is  commonly 
supposed.  In  his  hot  youth  he  had  involved  himself  in 
trouble  at  Cambridge  by  giving  vent  to  hardly  veiled 
Jacobite  sentiments  in  a  Tripos  speech,  for  which  he 
was  '  degraded,'  and  to  those  sentiments  he  adhered, 
though  with  much  greater  reserve  and  reticence,  through 
life. 

He  wrote  a  fine,  manly  letter  to  his  elder  brother 
George  to  explain  why  he  could  not  take  the  oath  in 
1715,  and  from   the  views   expressed   in  that  letter  he 


332  THE  NONJURORS 

swerved  to  the  close  of  his  life,  forty-four  years 
later.     He  never  joined  the  active  opponents  of  the  new 
Government,  for  he  had  no  mind  to  meddle  with  politics. 
It  was  a  matter  of  indifference  to  him  personally  whether 
King  James  or  King  George  were  sitting  on  the  throne  ; 
but  his  political  sympathies  were  always  with  the  exiled 
Stuarts,  and  his  theological  with  the  Nonjurors.     From 
the   latter  he  received   priest's    orders.     In   the   list   of 
ordinations  in  the  Rawlinson  MSS.  this  entry  occurs  : 
•  (24)    1727,   Janrv   18th,   William    Law,  M.A.,    ordained 
preist  by  Mr>  Gandy,  present  D1'-  Eawlinson,  Mr-  Gordoun, 
Mr-  Bowyer,  Mr-  Bettenham,  and  Mr-  Charles  Smith ' ; 
and  from  the  same  trustworthy  source  we  learn  that  he 
was  one  of  the  witnesses  present  at  the  consecration  of 
Bishop   Henry  Hall    '  in  Mr-  Blackbourne's  Chapell  in 
Grey's  Inne.'     He  took  some  part,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
ascertain  what  part,  in  the  '  Usages '  controversy.     On 
the  whole,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  his  clear,  logical 
mind   perceived,  as   the   clear,  logical   mind  of   Charles 
Leslie  perceived,  that  it  was  a  mistake  to  make  the  Usages 
essential ;  in  other  words,  that  he  was  not  an  '  Essen- 
tialist.'     But,  as  this  is  not  a  biography  of  William  Law, 
it  would  take  up  too  much  space  to  go  into  the  matter 
thoroughly,  though  it  would  be  necessary  to  do  so  in 
order  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion.     He  sympathised  with 
the   sufferings   of    the   Nonjurors ;    for   when   poor   Dr. 
Deacon's  health  and  mental  power  broke  down,  and  he 
was  in  dire  distress,  we  hear  of  Law  sending  him  ten 
guineas  through  John  Byrom.1     There  are  various  inci- 
dental notices  which  show  that  the  more  active  Jacobites 
an.l   Nonjurors  appreciated  Law's  talents  and  character 
I    Hi' >  <1    erved  to  be  appreciated.    John  Byrom  avowedly 

'  Boa  Private  Journal  and  Literary  Remains  of  John  Byrom  (Chetlmm 
Boo.),  I 


W.  LAW— J.  LINDSAY  333 

took  Law  for  his  lord  and  master,1  regarding  him  with 
the  same  sort  of  reverence  with  which  Boswell  regarded 
Johnson.  John  Clayton,  Wesley's  Jacobite  friend,  when 
both  were  Oxford  Methodists  and  very  High  Churchmen, 
refers  to  Law  as  a  kind  of  final  authority.2  Two  of  the 
ablest  and  most  noted  of  the  later  Nonjurors,  Thomas 
Deacon  and  John  Lindsay,  both  refer  to  Law  in  terms  of: 
high  respect.  '  I  want  sadly  to  see  you,'  writes  Deacon 
to  Byrom,  February  20, 1729-30,  '  to  know  what  Mr.  Law 
says  of  you.  Thos.  a  Cattell  cannot  relish  his  book. 
O  Christianity,  where  art  thou  to  be  found  ?  Not  amongst 
the  clergy.' 3  Cattell  was  a  clergyman,  and  the  book 
was,  no  doubt,  the  '  Serious  Call,'  which  had  been  lately 
published.  '  Mr.  Law,'  writes  John  Lindsay  to  the  same 
correspondent  in  1753,  '  has  cured  me  of  curiosity.' 4  The 
cure  might  have  been  effected  either  by  Law's  public 
writings  or  by  private  correspondence  or  intercourse,  for 
Law  and  Lindsay  were  personal  friends,  though,  owing 
to  that  detachment  which  separated  the  later  Nonjurors, 
they  saw  little  of  one  another. 

The  last  sentence  introduces  us  to  another  Nonjuror, 
who,  though  not  of  so  lofty  a  type  or  so  rare  a  genius  as 
Law,  was  yet  one  whose  attainments  would  have  done 
honour  to  any  community  in  any  age  of  the  Church. 

John  Li?idsay  (1686-1768)  was  probably  a  native  of 
Cheshire,  though  his  early  history  is  rather  obscure.  He 
is  said  to  have  been  of  the  same  family  as  Theophilus 
Lindsey,  the  clergyman  who  became  a  Unitarian ;  and 
the  difference  in  the  spelling  of  their  names  is  not  fatal 

1  Oh  !  how  much  better  he  from  whom  I  draw, 
Though  deep  yet  clear  his  system — '  Master  Law.' 
Master  I  call  him  ;  not  that  I  incline 
To  pin  my  faith  on  any  one  divine. 

Epistle  to  a  Gentleman  of  tlie  Temple. 

2  See  Tyerman's  Oxford  Methodists,  p.  38. 

3  Byrom's  Journal,  vol.  i.  part  ii.  429.  4  Ibid.  iii.  552. 


334  THE  NONJURORS 

to  the  theory,  for  in  the  eighteenth  century  people  had 
not  yet  become  at  all  particular  about  the  spelling  of 
proper  names.  He  is  described  in  his  epitaph  as  an 
'  alumnus '  of  St.  Mary  Hall,  Oxford,  but  his  name  does 
not  appear  on  the  books.  He  is  said  to  have  been  first 
an  attorney  in  Cheshire,  and  then,  having  received  Holy 
Orders,  chaplain  to  Lad)'  Fanshawe  ;  but  he  was  then 
only  a  deacon,  for  we  find  in  the  Kawlinson  MSS.  : 
'  1717,  June  18.  Mr.  John  Lindsay  was  ordained  preist 
in  Mr.  Orrne's  Chapell  (commonly  called  Trinity  Chapell) 
in  the  parish  of  S.  Botolph  Without,  Aldersgate.' 

He  acted,  like  Blackbourne,  as  corrector  of  the  press 
for  William  Bowyer,  and  was  for  many  years  minister  of 
the  chapel  in  which  he  was  ordained,  succeeding  Mr.  Orme 
in  that  post  in  1733,  and  retaining  it  until  his  death  in 
1768.  His  own  description  of  his  life  in  1747  gives  one  the 
impression  that  his  ministerial  duties  were  rather  light : 
'  I  removed  last  Christmas  from  the  Temple,  and  took  a 
lodging  in  Pear-Tree  Street,  near  St.  Luke's,  Old  Street, 
where  I  spend  my  time  chiefly  among  books,  or  in  my 
garden.' '  It  was  there  that  in  1764  Bishop  Forbes  'drank 
tea  with  Bev.  Mr.  John  Lindsay  and  his  wife,  near  S. 
Luke's  Church,'  and  '  received  from  Mr.  Lindsay  two  of 
his  own  books  in  a  present.' '-'  He  was  certainly  a  corre- 
spondent of  William  Law,  though  it  is  not  always  easy  to 
determine  whether  the  'J.  L.'  of  Law's  letters  is  John 
Lindsay  or  James  Langcake.  At  one  time  he  lived  at 
Edington,  for  the  Preface  to  his  best-known  publication 
IS  dated  from  that  place,  and  in  Islington  Churchyard  he 
was  buried.  The  majority  of  his  very  able  works  are  on 
genera]  subjects,  and  will  therefore  be  noticed  elsewhere; 
and  one  of  those  which  bear  directly  upon  the  Nonjuring 

1   •  I.,  tt.r  of  John  Lindsay,'  quoted  in  Nichols's  Lit.  Aii.  i.  370. 
1  Journals,  dc,  of  Bishop  Hubert  Forbes,  p.  M. 


THOMAS  CAETE  335 

question  has  already  been  noticed.1  Most  of  the  works 
assigned  to  Lindsay  were  published  anonymously,  and  we 
have  to  trust  to  tradition  for  their  authorship  ;  there  is, 
however,  the  internal  evidence  of  the  style,  which  is 
bright,  easy,  and  scholarly,  and  corresponds  exactly  with 
that  of  the  works  which  he  published  under  his  own 
name. 

Among  the  later  Nonjurors  was  another  writer  who 
was  in  his  own  day  more  widely  known  than  either  Law 
or  Lindsay ;  he  touched  life  at  more  points,  threw  him- 
self far  more  actively  into  the  political,  if  not  the  theo- 
logical, interests  of  his  party,  and  produced  a  standard 
work  on  a  general  subject  which  would  find  its  way  into 
quarters  into  which  even  Law's  works,  which  were  all 
exclusively  religious,  would  never  penetrate.  Posterity, 
however,  which  rarely  makes  a  mistake  in  such  matters, 
has  redressed  the  balance  and  placed  Law  far  above  Carte, 
who  now  comes  before  us. 

Thomas  Carte  (1686-1754)  was  born  at  Clifton-upon- 
Dunsmore,  where  his  father  was  vicar.  He  was  an 
Oxford  man  and  graduated  B.A.  from  University  College 
in  1702,  and  was  then  incorporated  at  Cambridge,  where 
he  took  his  M.A.  degree  from  King's  College  in  1706.  He 
then  received  Holy  Orders,  and  became  Eeader  at  the 
Abbey  Church,  Bath,  a  post  which  he  held  for  several 
years.  He  was  known  all  the  while  to  be  a  strong 
Jacobite,  but  that  would  not  go  against  him  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Anne,  especially  in  the  last  four  years  of  that 
reign.  It  was  not  until  the  accession  of  George  I.  that 
his  hand  was  forced ;  he  declined  the  new  oaths,  lost  or 
resigned  his  readership,  and  assumed  a  lay  habit  as  some 
other  Nonjurors  for  prudential  reasons  did ;  but  this  did 
not  at  all  mean  that  he  was  ashamed  of  his  profession, 

1  See  supra,  p.  284-6. 


336  THE  NONJURORS 

but  simply  that  it  was  dangerous  for  him,  thoroughgoing 
Jacobite  as  he  was,  to  appear  without  disguise.  He  was 
ted,  probably  not  without  reason,  of  being  con- 
cerned in  the  rebellion  of  1715,  and  for  some  time  lay 
2)ercJu  in  the  house  of  Mr.  Badger,  curate  of  Coleshill, 
occasionally,  it  is  said,  officiating  in  Kettlewell's  old 
church.  This  is  by  no  means  unlikely,  for  the  Jacobite 
party  was  still  very  strong,  and  it  was  not  the  policy  of 
the  Government  to  inquire  too  closely  into  the  political 
opinions  of  the  clergy.  He  then  became  connected  with 
Bishop  Atterbury,  acting  probably  as  his  secretary ;  so 
when  Atterbury  was  committed  to  the  Tower  in  1722,  a 
proclamation  was  issued  offering  1,0007.  for  the  appre- 
hension of  Carte.  Happily  for  him  the  description  of  his 
personal  appearance  in  the  proclamation  was  absurdly  in- 
accurate, so  he  was  able  to  escape  to  France,  where  he 
lived  under  the  assumed  name  of  Phillips  for  six  years, 
employing  his  time  in  the  most  indefatigable  literary 
labour.  He  gained  a  well-deserved  reputation  for  learn- 
ing ;  and  therefore,  on  the  accession  of  George  II.,  Queen 
Caroline,  who  was  a  steady  patron  of  all  learned  men,  no 
matter  what  their  opinions  were,  interceded  for  him,  and 
he  returned  to  England  in  1728.  His  valuable  literary 
work  will  be  described  in  a  later  chapter. 

Thomas  Wagstaffe,  the  younger  (1092-1770),  second 
son  of  Thomas  Wagstaffe,  the  elder,  is  another  distin- 
guished man  among  the  later  Nonjurors,  and  it  is  only 
i. wing  to  the  fact  that  he  lived  at  a  time  when  the  party 
was  dispersed,  disunited,  and  diminished  that  he  does  not 
hold  so  prominent  a  place  in  it  as  his  father.  Whether 
I  i  .fi.nl  man  like  his  father  does  not  appear  to 
be   known   for  a  oertainty,  bnt  at  any  rate   he  became, 

as   his    writings    abundantly    prOVO,    an    e\r<  11.  ,;[    classical 

scholar,  hesides  being  a  well-read  divine;  he  was  closely 


THOMAS  WAGSTAFFE,  THE  YOUNGEB         337 

associated  with  the  leading  Nonjurors,  who  showed  their 
confidence  in  him  by  making  him  keeper  of  their  Church 
records  immediately  after  his  ordination.  'In  1717-8 
Mr.  Thomas  Wagstaffe,  son  of  Mr.  Tho.  Wagstaffe,  suf- 
fragan Bp.  of  Ipswich,  was  ordained  deacon  by  Mr. 
Collier  in  Mr.  Lawrence's  Chapel ;  present  Mr.  Lawrence, 
Mr.  Bichard  and  Thomas  Bawlinson,  Mr.  Sam  Jebb  and 
Mr.  Eivett.  Preist  by  Mr.  Collier,  at  the  same  place,  25 
April,  1719.'  In  the  same  year  he  published  a  pamphlet 
of  fifty-seven  pages  in  excellent  Latin  on  the  subject 
of  the  Mixed  Chalice.  It  was  written  in  reply  to  Samuel 
Drake,  a  scholar  of  no  mean  repute,  who  had  preached  in 
the  University  pulpit  a  sermon  against  the  necessity  of 
*  the  Mixture.'  Wagstaffe's  pamphlet  was  entitled  «  Vino 
Eucharistico  Aqua  necessario  admiscenda,'  to  which  Drake 
replied  in  1721,  in  a  long  Latin  pamphlet  addressed  '  Ad 
Thomam  Wagstaffe  ' ;  and  Wagstaffe  rejoined  in  another 
pamphlet  (1725)  entitled  '  Eesponsionis  ad  Concionem 
Yindiciae,  &c.'  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Wagstaffe  was 
a  Usager  and  Essentialist.  His  powers  as  a  Latinist  are 
strikingly  displayed  in  numerous  Latin  epitaphs,  some  of 
which  may  be  found  in  the  pages  of  Nichols  and  Hearne, 
while  a  still  more  interesting  one  has  been  discovered  by 
the  present  rector  of  St.  Margaret  Pattens  (Eev.  J.  L. 
Fish),  which  Wagstaffe  wrote  on  his  father,  once  rector 
of  that  parish.  He  was  also  an  accomplished  Grecian, 
and  employed  much  time  in  collating  the  Greek  MSS. 
in  the  Vatican  and  Barberini  Libraries  at  Eome.1  And 
besides  being  a  classical  scholar  he  was  a  good  linguist 
all  round.  «  He  could  speak  seven  languages  besides  his 
own,  and  was  as  much  at  home  in  Hebrew,  Arabic  and 
Syrian  [sic]  as  in  Italian  or  French.'     At  what  time  he 

1  See,  inter  alia,  the  excellent  article  on  the  two  Wagstaffes,  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 


338  THE  NONJURORS 

finally  left  England  is  not  known,  but  it  was  certainly 
before  1738  that  he  went  as  Anglican  chaplain,  first  to 
the  elder  and  then  to  the  younger  Chevalier,  and  re- 
mained in  that  capacity  for  more  than  thirty-two  years. 
He  did  not  succeed  in  converting  either  of  them,  but  he 
was  highly  respected  by  both,  and  by  the  Roman  people 
generally.  He  is  described  in  his  old  age  as  '  a  fine,  well- 
bred  old  gentleman,  and,  what  is  still  infinitely  more 
valuable,  a  sincere,  pious,  exemplary,  good  Christian,  so 
conspicuously  so  that  the  people  there  [at  Rome]  were 
wont  to  say  that  had  he  not  been  a  Heretic,  he  ought  to 
have  been  canonised.' i  It  was  "Wagstaffe  who  kept 
Gordon  posted  in  the  latest  information  about  '  the  King 
over  the  water,'  which  information  Gordon  retailed  to 
Forbes.  Gordon  felt  "Wagstaffe's  death  deeply,  and  wrote 
to  Forbes  on  the  occasion  : 

Jan.  1771.  I  am  sorry  that  our  hearty  gratulations  of  the 
new  year,  to  yourself  and  good  Mrs.  Forbes,  should  be  accom- 
panied with  the  doleful  news  of  the  death  of  my  old,  and  very 
dear,  dear  friend,  Mr.  Wagstaffe,  who  departed  this  life  full  of 
days  and  full  of  honour  and  all  true  worth,  on  the  3rd  ult.  in  a 
fit  of  apoplexy,  which  was  notified  to  me  by  his  patron  [that  is, 
of  course,  Prince  Charles  Edward],  who  seems  a  good  deal 
affected  by  the  loss,  speaking  of  him  in  terms  of  high  esteem 
and  regard.  But  God's  will  be  done,  and  His  name  ever 
glorified,  who  hath  permitted  it  so  to  be.  The  good  man 
departed  will  be  the  gainer  in  being  removed  to  the  mansion  of 
peace  and  rest ;  and  our  temporary  loss,  though  grievous  to 
poor  mortals,  will  be  compensated  in  the  reflections  on  the 
rare  virtues  and  illustrious  and  edifying  example  of  our  dear 
brother,  now  happy,  I  doubt  not,  in  the  society  of  the  faithful 
departed;  to  which  society  may  we  who  survive  prepare  our- 

Selves    by   constant    and  assiduous  endeavour   to   be    United 
I  Drits  .'2 

1  B  '    '  ..  Mourning,  and  Dictionary  of  National  Biography, 

n  m  Mourning,  111.  'J.'-T. 


THOMAS  BEDFOED  339 

It  is  rather  remarkable  that,  though  the  Nonjurors 
were  a  small  and  an  ever  diminishing  party,  they  seem  to 
have  had  in  an  unusual  degree  the  power  of  impressing 
their  views  strongly  upon  their  own  families.  It  is  al- 
most a  commonplace  that  the  children  of  religious  parents 
too  often  fly  off  at  a  tangent  to  quite  different  opinions  ;  it 
would  be  invidious  to  give  instances,  but  anyone  who  is  at 
all  acquainted  with  the  religious  history  of  the  eighteenth 
and  early  nineteenth  centuries  will  be  able  to  supply 
numerous  instances  for  themselves.  But  it  was  not  so 
with  the  Nonjurors.  The  Bretts,  Wagstaffes,  Bowdlers,  and 
Bonwickes  are  instances,  and  now  we  come  to  another. 

Thomas  Bedford  (1707-73),  second  son  of  Hilkiah 
Bedford,  followed  closely  in  the  steps  of  his  father,  and  is 
less  known  only  because  the  later  Nonjurors  were  a  less 
united  body.  The  few  facts  that  are  known  about  him  all 
tally  with  what  his  circumstances  would  lead  us  to  expect. 
He  was  educated  at  Westminster  School,  as  was  natural, 
since  his  father  kept  a  boarding-house  for  Westminster 
boys.  Thence  he  proceeded  in  1730  to  St.  John's  College, 
Cambridge,  as  sizar  to  Dr.  Jenkin,  the  master.  Being  a 
strict  Nonjuror,  he  could  not  take  a  degree  ;  in  fact,  his 
residence  at  Cambridge  must  have  been  very  brief,  for 
Bawlinson  tells  us  that  '  Thomas  Bedford  was  ordained 
deacon  at  x  x  x  ,  preist  on  St.  John's  Day,  Dec.  27, 1731, 
by  Mr.  Gandy  in  his  own  chapell.'  After  his  ordina- 
tion he  found  a  home  and  employment  as  chaplain  in 
the  household  of  Sir  John  Cotton  ;  and  we  next  find  him 
in  the  county  of  Durham,  near  his  sister,  Mrs.  Smith.  It 
was  at  this  period  that  he  laboured  in  Durham  Cathedral 
at  his  best  known  work,  an  edition  of  the  chronicler, 
Symeon  of  Durham's  '  Historia  Ecclesias  Dunelmensis  ' 
(1732).  His  last  move  was  to  Compton,  near  Ashbourne, 
in  Derbyshire,  where  he  resided  until  his  death  in  1773, 

z2 


340  THE  NONJURORS 

officiating  as  minister  to  the  Nonjurors  of  the  neighbour- 
hood, but  whether  in  private  houses  or  in  a  Nonjuring 
chapel  we  are  not  told ;  if  it  was  the  latter,  and  Bedford 
officiated  in  it  to  the  end,  it  must  have  been  one  of 
the  last  congregations  of  the  regular  Nonjurors  outside 
London.  At  Compton  he  wrote  an  '  Historical  Cate- 
chism' (1742),  partly  taken  from  the  Abbe  Fleury's 
'  Catechisrne  Historique,'  and  did  another  piece  of  literary 
work,  which  shows  him  in  a  very  amiable  light.  Though 
he  was  a  Nonjuror,  he  became  a  great  friend  of  Ellis 
Farneworth,  the  assistant  curate  in  the  neighbouring 
parish  of  Ashbourne,  who  eked  out  a  scanty  livelihood  by 
translating  foreign  works  into  English.  Bedford  trans- 
lated from  the  French  the  Abbe  Fleury's  '  Short  History 
of  the  Israelites,'  and  made  a  present  of  it  to  Farneworth 
that  he  might  raise  a  little  money  from  the  sale,  for 
Farneworth  was  very  poor  and  had  two  sisters  dependent 
upon  him  for  support. 


What  has  been  said  in  a  former  chapter  respecting 
the  difficulty  about  labelling  laymen  as  Nonjurors  in  the 
earlier  period  is  still  more  applicable  to  the  later ;  for,  in 
spite  of  much  grumbling  and  occasional  outbreaks  of 
rebellion,  the  Hanoverian  Government  became  yearly 
more  and  more  settled,  and  the  opposition  to  it  more  and 
more  hopeless.  Hence  those  laymen  who  were  inclined 
to  be  Nonjurors,  but  were  not  obliged,  for  official  reasons, 
to  show  their  hands,  were  naturally  less  and  less  disposed 
to  do  so.  Nevertheless,  there  were  several  laymen  who 
deserve  notice  as  being,  at  any  rate,  in  full  sympathy -with 
the  Later  Nonjurors.  But  we  may  begin  with  one  who 
went  further  than  this,  and  sacrificed  his  worldly  prospects 
for  conscience'  Bake  as  literally  as  any  oiergyman  did. 


EDWAED   HOLDSWOETH— CHAELES  JENNENS    341 

Edward  Holdsworth  (1684-1746)  was  a  very  promis- 
ing Oxford  man,  who,  having  taken  his  degree  as  demy  of 
Magdalen  in  1708,  remained  at  Oxford  as  tutor  of  his 
college  until  the  time  came  when  he  would  in  the  natural 
course  of  things  have  been  chosen  fellow ;  but  it  was  the 
critical  year  1715,  and,  as  Holdsworth  could  not  con- 
scientiously recognise  the  new  Government,  he  resigned 
his  post  and  quitted  the  University.  During  the  rest  of 
his  life  he  earned  a  precarious  living  by  acting  as  tutor  in 
families  where  there  were  Jacobite  sympathies.  He  had 
a  high  reputation  as  a  classical  scholar,  particularly  for 
his  knowledge  of  Virgil,  of  whom  Pope's  friend,  Spence 
(a  good  judge),  says  he  had  the  best  understanding  of  any 
man  he  ever  knew.  He  used  to  study  Virgil's  works  on 
the  spot  where  they  were  written,  and  wrote  much  on  the 
subject.  But  his  numerous  writings  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Nonjuring  question,  and  therefore  do  not  come 
under  our  notice.  Hearne  gives  an  interesting  account  of 
a  visit  paid  by  Holdsworth  to  his  old  University : 

1720.  Sep.  3.  Mr.  Holdsworth,  lately  fellow  of  Magdalen,1 
and  now  a  Nonjuror  called  upon  me.  He  is  a  right  worthy 
man,  and  hath  been  lately  at  Eome.  He  shewed  me  pictures 
of  King  James  III.  and  his  Queen.  The  Queen  is  a  very  fine 
lady.  The  King,  he  says,  is  a  prince  of  admirable  sense,  cheerful 
and  finely  shaped.2 

Holdsworth  finally  settled  in  the  family  of  Lord  Higby, 
whose  predecessor  had  been  Kettlewell's  kind  patron,  at 
Coleshill,  and  there  he  died,  and  was  buried  in  Kettle- 
well's  old  church.  His  name  is  connected  with  that  of 
another  Nonjuring  layman. 

Charles  Jenncns  (1700-73)  was  a  curious  medley, 
being  on  the  one  hand  a  great  friend  and  supporter  of 

1  He  never  wiis  full  fellow. 
•  Eeliquics  Hearniance,  ii.  112. 


342  THE   NONJURORS 

the  musician,  Handel,  who  was  the  protege  of  the  Hano- 
verians and  the  abhorrence  of  the  Jacobites;  and  on  the 
other  hand  both  a  Nonjuror  himself  and  a  kind  friend 
and  patron  of  distressed  Nonjurors.  He  was  educated 
at  Halliol  College,  Oxford,  a  stronghold  of  Jacobites,  but 
never  graduated,  because  his  conscience  forbade  him  to 
take  the  oaths.  He  can  hardly  be  called  a  sufferer  in  the 
cause,  because  he  succeeded  to  the  family  estate  and  be- 
came a  rich  squire  at  Gopsall,  in  Leicestershire.  There 
he  erected  a  sort  of  Ionic  Temple,  containing  a  monument 
to  his  friend,  Edward  Holdsworth,  whose  literary  talents 
and  Nonjuring  principles  he  alike  admired.  The  next 
layman  requires  a  longer  notice. 

John  Byrom  (1692-1763)  was  a  man  of  varied  tastes 
and  accomplishments;  he  was  a  quaint  and  pleasing  poet 
in  his  way ;  the  inventor  and  teacher  of  a  new  system 
of  shorthand ;  a  mystic,  or  rather  a  humble  student 
of  mysticism  under  the  tutelage  of  W.  Law ;  and 
a  diarist  worthy  of  being  placed  by  the  side  of  Pepys, 
Evelyn,  and  Thoresby.  Strictly  speaking,  he  cannot  be 
called  a  Nonjuror,  because,  after  many  doubts  and  mis- 
givings, he  did  take  the  oaths  both  of  Allegiance  and 
Abjuration  in  order  to  qualify  himself  for  a  fellowship  at 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  to  which  he  was  elected  just 
after  the  accession  of  George  I.1  It  was  well  for  the 
Trinity  fellowship  that  he  had  not  yet  come  under 
the  spell  of  a  fellow  of  a  neighbouring  college.  It  was 
not  till  1729  that  Byrom  became  acquainted  with  William 
Law,  whom  he  at  once  took  for  his  'master.'  This  con- 
nection would,  no  doubt,  confirm  his  Nonjuring  sym- 
pathies ;  but  bo  I'ar  as  active  Jacobitism  was  concerned 
Byrom  outran  bis  master,  and  on  one  occasion  was  warned 
by  him  against  being  premature,  Law  telling  him   (as 

■  r  and  Remain*,  \<»i.  i.  pari  i.  pp.  94  B  and  SI, 


JOHN  BYKOM  343 

Byrom  records  in  his  artless  way,  reminding  one  of  the 
way  in  which  Boswell  wrote  of  Johnson)  '  that  there  should 
not  be  so  much  talk  about  such  matters ;  that  the  time 
was  not  now  ;  that  he  loved  a  man  of  taciturnity.' l  But 
Byrom  had  friends  at  Manchester  who  were  much  more 
impetuous  and  less  reticent  on  the  subject  than  William 
Law.  Manchester  was  a  stronghold  of  the  later  Jacobites, 
and  as  the  Byroms  were  a  very  old  and  highly  respected 
family,  and  formed  a  large  clan  in  the  neighbourhood,  the 
adherence  of  the  ablest  and  most  prominent  of  them  was 
warmly  welcomed.  Byrom  certainly  became  more  and 
more  sympathetic  with  the  Jacobite  cause.  As  early  as 
1727  he  had  a  sharp  dispute  with  Sir  Hans  Sloane  at  a 
meeting  of  the  Koyal  Society,  of  which  they  were  both 
fellows,  on  the  subject  of  an  address  to  the  new  King 
(George  II.).  He  became  an  intimate  friend  of  Dr.  Deacon, 
a  staunch  Jacobite  and  Nonjuror  at  Manchester,  who 
always  seems  to  assume  in  the  correspondence  between 
them  that  they  were  both  on  the  same  side.  John  Clayton, 
Wesley's  Jacobite  friend,  and  perhaps  also  the  clergy  at 
the  Collegiate  Church,  influenced  him  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. Dr.  Hibbert  Ware  distinctly  affirms  that  '  the  cause 
of  the  Jacobite  party,  which  had  become  very  strong 
[1730-1],  was  much  aided  by  the  powerful  talents  of 
Dr.  Byrom,' 2  and  Mr.  Owen,  a  Presbyterian  minister  of 
the  place,  published,  in  1748,  a  violent  pamphlet  entitled 
1  Jacobite  and  jSTonjuring  Principles  freely  examined. 
In  a  Letter  to  the  Master  Tool  of  the  Faction  in  Man- 
chester ' — that  is,  Byrom.  There  is  little  doubt,  too,  that 
he  joined  with  Deacon  in  producing  a  series  of  papers 
which  first  appeared  in  the  Chester  Courant,  a  Jacobite 
organ,  and  were  published  separately  in  a  small  volume 

1  Byrom's  Journal  for  August  1,  1739. 

-  History  of  Foundations  in  Manchester,  ii.  77. 


THE  NONJURORS 

entitle  ,l  •  M  Vindicated/  in  1710.    But  in  spite 

of  all  this  we  gather  from  his  eldest  daughter's  journal, 
published  in  the  'Bemains,'1  as  well  as  from  his  own 
conduct,  that  he  did  not  commit  himself,  at  least  to  any- 
thing like  the  same  extent  as  his  friends.  His  own 
position  is  probably  described  in  the  best  known  of  hia 
many  racy  epigrams : 

God  bless  the  King,  God  bless  our  faith's  defender, 
God  bless — no  harm  in  blessing — the  Pretender  ; 
But  who  pretender  is,  and  who  is  king, 
God  bless  us  all !  that's  quite  another  thing. 

Tho»u(s  Bawlinson  (1681-1725)  was  another  learned 
layman  who  stood  somewhat  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
Nonjurors  and  Jacobites  that  Byrom  did,  but  for  a  different 
reason.  It  was  not  because  he  would  not  commit  himself, 
but  simply  because  he  was  so  immersed  in  his  books  and 
manuscripts  that  he  had  no  time  for  other  interests.  He 
was  the  elder  brother  of  the  bishop,  and  certainly  shared 
his  views.  He  was  educated  at  Eton  and  St.  John's 
College,  Oxford,  but  left  the  University  after  two  years' 
'ice  to  study  at  the  Middle  Temple.  He  was  called 
to  the  liar  in  170o,  but  on  his  fathers  death  in  170S  he 
BUCCeeded  to  a  large  estate  and  was  able  to  follow  his 
favourite  pursuit.    He  is  said  to  havi  e  original  o! 

Addison's  brilliant  sketch  of  Tom  Folio  in  the  Tatter 
(No.  L58).  If  this  be  so,  Addison  is  extremely  unjust  to 
him,  for  he  describes  him  a-  a  sort  of  freethinker,  which 

1  Vol.  ii.  pint  ii.  i . • ..  B85   111.     Mi        I  ;i  most 

vm.i  and  delightful  aooount  of  tin/  rising ol  '45,   o  tu  aa  slanahi 
oonoerned  ;  it  la  til!  the  more  delightful  and,  indeed,  trustworthy,  because  It 
with  the  fresh  artl  youni   girl,  who  Bimply  tells  what 

•  and  beard  on  the  Bpot.  ■     the  panic  that  pn 

gire  tin-  Dames  of  man;  who  joined  the  Prince's  standard,  and  of  others 
•ho  wen    rarj  tin-  latter  wa     Dr.  !'•■  om:  'My  papa 

:iim1  mj  onoli  .it  with  Mr.  Oroxton,  Mr.  Feilden,  and 

othi  i  .  i  behavi  civilly  ' 

(pp.  B91  '-'). 


THOMAS  EAWLINSON  345 

he  certainly  never  was ;  but  he  was  a  Tory  and  a 
bibliophile,  two  characters  for  which  the  great  Whig 
essayist  had  a  profound  contempt.  Hearne,  on  the  other 
hand,  had  a  strong  sympathy  both  with  his  principles  and 
his  tastes.  He  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  '  Collections ' 
in  connection  with  literary  matters  ;  but  in  one  passage 
Hearne  bears  the  highest  testimony  to  his  character  in 
excellent  Latin.1  An  extended  notice  of  one  who  took  so 
little  active  part  in  the  Nonjuring  movement  would  be  out 
of  place,  but  he  furnishes  one  more  instance  of  the  attrac- 
tion which  that  movement  had  for  men  of  the  highest 
culture,  particularly  in  classical  and  antiquarian  subjects. 

1  See  Collections,  ii.  285. 


34G  THE  NONJURORS 


CHAPTER,   VIII 

THE   TWO   IRREGULAR   SUCCESSIONS 

That  the  Nonjurors,  with  their  strong  convictions  on 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  should  have  had  so  many  inter- 
nal divisions  is  a  painful  illustration  of  the  fact  that 
when  the  process  of  dividing  once  begins  it  has  a  fatal 
tendency  to  go  on  making  subdivisions  and  subdivisions, 
till  there  is  scarcely  anything  left  to  divide.  It  is  to  the 
credit  of  John  Blackbourne  that  when  he  was  left  alone 
as  a  Non-Usager  among  the  bishops,  he  did  not  imme- 
diately proceed  to  consecrate  a  bishop  on  his  own 
account.  It  would  have  been  well  if  others  had  acted 
with  the  same  self-restraint.  But  there  were  unfortu- 
nately two  irregular  successions,  through  the  uncanonical 
action  of  two  individual  bishops,  which  have  now  to  be 
considered. 

The  first  arose  in  1722,  when,  as  Rawlinson  tells  us, 

Ric.  Welton,  D.D.,  was  consecrated  by  Dr.  Taylor  alone  in 
a  clandestine  manner. 

xxx  Talbot,  M.A.,  was  consecrated  by  tbe  same  person 
at  the  same  time,  and  as  irregularly. 

In  justice  to  all  concerned,  it  should  be  added  that  these 
two  consecrations  wen:  intended  to  meet  a  very  crying 
want,  which  nil  who  called  themselves  Churchmen,  low 
or  high,jnring  or  nonjuxing,  agreed  in  deploring;  but  this 
was  act  the  right  way  to  meet  it.  Of  the  two  bishops 
thus  consecrated  it  is  easy  enough  to  identify  the  first. 
/.'  ■  hard  Welton    l « '» 7 1   L726)  was  son  of  a  druggist  at 


EICHAED  WELTON  347 

Woodbridge,  and  was  educated  at  Woodbridge  School, 
from  which  he  was  elected  to  a  scholarship  at  Caius 
College,  Cambridge.  He  graduated  from  Caius  College 
in  1691-2,  was  ordained  in  1695,  and  within  two  years  of 
his  ordination  (1697)  received  the  rectory  of  St.  Mary, 
Whitechapel,  to  which  was  added  in  1710  the  vicarage  of 
East  Ham.  Thus  before  he  was  thirty  years  of  age  he 
had  received  two  good  pieces  of  preferment  in  the  '  Ee- 
volution  Church  ' ;  but  like  many  clergymen  of  that  date, 
his  heart  was  not  with  that  Church ;  he  was  a  Jacobite 
before  he  was  a  Nonjuror.  Hence  it  cannot  be  laid 
to  the  charge  of  the  Nonjurors  that  they  had  anything 
to  do  with  a  discreditable  incident  which  took  place 
in  1713.  In  that  year  an  altar-piece  was  set  up  by  the 
rector's  directions  in  Whitechapel  Church,  representing 
'  The  Last  Supper.'  The  artist,  James  Fellowes,  was 
instructed  to  take  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  (Dr.  Burnet) 
as  his  model  for  Judas  Iscariot,  but  was  afraid  of  the 
consequences  of  such  a  scandalum  magnatum.  A  less 
exalted  personage,  therefore,  but  one  hardly  less  obnoxious 
to  the  Nonjurors,  Dr.  White  Kennett,  then  Dean  of 
Peterborough,  was  substituted ;  and  that  there  might  be 
no  mistake  about  the  person  intended,  Judas  was  painted 
with  a  black  patch  over  his  eye,  just  like  that  which  Dr. 
Kennett  was  always  obliged  to  wear  in  consequence  of  a 
shooting  accident  he  had  met  with  in  his  youth.  Among 
the  crowds  who  came  to  see  the  picture  was  Mrs.  White 
Kennett,  who  indignantly  recognised  her  husband.  The 
dean  brought  the  case  before  the  Bishop  of  London's 
Court,  and  the  picture  was  removed.  It  did  not  help  the 
Nonjurors'  cause,  when  one  who  was  chiefly  known  as  the 
perpetrator  of  this  outrage  was  made  one  of  their  bishops ; 
but  it  is  only  in  a  very  modified  sense  that  Dr.  Welton  can 
be  called  a  Nonjuring  bishop ;  in  spite  of  his  Jacobitism, 


348  THE  NONJURORS 

he  held  on  to  his  livings  until  the  Abjuration  Oath 
was  forced  upon  him,  with  a  distinct  intimation  that  if 
he  did  not  take  it  within  twenty-four  hours  he  would  be 
dispossessed  and  punished.  Then  he  became  a  Nonjuror, 
and  ministered  to  a  Nonjuring  congregation  in  Good- 
man's Fields.  His  later  history  merges  in  that  of  Talbot, 
the  popular  account  of  whom  is  as  follows  : 

John  Talbot  was  ship's  chaplain  of  the  'Centurion,' 
the  vessel  which  took  out  the  first  two  travelling  mis- 
sionaries of  the  S.P.G.,  George  Keith  and  Patrick  Gordon, 
to  America  in  1702.  Keith  and  Gordon  fired  Talbot  with 
a  zeal  for  mission  work ;  and,  at  his  desire,  they  asked 
and  obtained  leave  from  the  S.P.G.  for  him  to  join  them. 
Gordon  died  within  a  few  weeks  of  their  landing,  so 
Keith  and  Talbot  set  forth  on  their  missionary  journey 
like  a  second  Paul  and  Barnabas.  They  were  both  most 
devoted  and  successful  missionaries ;  and,  being  also  strong 
Churchmen,  they  of  course  found  their  work  impeded  by 
the  fact  that  there  were  no  bishops  in  America.  They 
a  deep  and  wide  impression  wherever  they  went  ; 
but  any  priest  who  has  been  a  successful  missioner  will 
at    once    realise    that   their  work  would   necessarily  be 

pped  everywhere  in  its  mid-course  because  it  would 
require  to  be  supplemented  by  offices  which  a  bishop 
alone  could  perform.  No  wonder,  then,  that  Talbot's 
letters  to  the  Society  at  home,  still  extant,  are  full  of  hints 
about  the  pressing  need.1  In  1704  Keith  returned  to 
England;  and  in  L705  Talbot  settled  at  Burlington,  the 
capita]  of  New  Jersey.  As  resident  minister  in  the  midst 
of  a  lar  population  he  felt  all  the  more  strongly  the 
pal  supervision  ;  and  it  is  said  that  he 
went  over  to  England  on  purpose  to  present  in  person  a 

'  Set  Auderson'i   Hitiory  of  the  Colonial  Church,  vol.  iii.  oh.  rxii. 

I'    72,  | 


JOHN  TALBOT  349 

memorial  to  Queen  Anne  praying  for  the  appointment  of 
a  bishop.  He  returned  to  Burlington  early  in  1708  and 
found  the  work  growing  upon  his  hands.  He  could  not 
devote  himself  exclusively  to  his  own  congregation.  '  I 
am  forced,'  he  says,  '  to  turn  itinerant  again,  for  the  care 
of  all  the  churches  from  East  to  West  Jersey  is  upon 
me,'  and  he  again  pressed  upon  the  Society  the  need  of  a 
bishop.1  Years  went  on,  and  he  was  still  disappointed  in 
his  hopes.  He  again  visited  England,  and  rumours  began 
to  spread  that  he  had  become  tainted  with  Jacobite  prin- 
ciples ;  he  associated  himself  with  Welton,  and  in  1722 
the  two  were  consecrated  to  the  Nonjuring  episcopate  as 
already  described.  "Welton  accompanied  Talbot  back  to 
America,  and  went  to  Philadelphia,  where  he  is  said  to 
have  exercised  his  episcopal  functions ;  Talbot  returned 
to  his  flock  in  New  Jersey.  There  is  no  evidence  of  his 
having  performed  any  episcopal  acts  ;  but  he  was  charged 
with  having  refused  to  pray  for  King  George — a  point  on 
which  American  Churchmen,  who  prided  themselves  on 
their  loyalty,  were  very  sensitive  ;  and  the  S.P.G.  was 
constrained  to  remove  him  from  his  post.  It  is  said  that 
he  afterwards  withdrew  from  the  Nonjurors  ;  but  he  was 
too  much  broken  down  with  age  and  disappointment  to 
resume  his  work,  and  he  died  on  November  29,  1727. 
Welton  was  summoned  to  return  to  England  by  a  writ 
of  privy  seal ;  he  embarked  for  Lisbon,  where  he  died  in 
August  1726.  Hearne  inserts  an  account  of  his  death 
(evidently  sent  from  Lisbon)  from  the  Beading  Post ;  and 
adds  as  a  sort  of  postscript :  '  N.B. — This  is  the  famous 
Dr.  Welton,  minister  of  White-Chappel,  who  suffered 
much  for  his  honesty,  and  was,  it  seems,  made  a  bishop, 
and  is  now  above  the  malice  of  all  his  enemies.' 2 

This  is  the  story  about  Welton  and  Talbot  which  has 
1  Anderson,  iii.  237.  2  BeUguuz  Heamiantv,  ii.  258. 


3,jO  the  nonjurors 

found  its  way  into  the  popular  histories;  it  hangs  so 
neatly  together,  and  there  is  such  an  air  of  verisimilitude 
about  it  all  that  it  seems  almost  like  sacrilege  to  cast  even 
the  shadow  of  a  doubt  upon  any  part  of  it.  And,  indeed, 
the  Welton  part  may  be  accepted  without  any  misgiving, 
and  the  Talbot  part  also,  until  we  come  to  the  identifica- 
tion of  John  Talbot,  one  of  the  first  travelling  missionaries 
of  the  S.P.G.,  with  '  x  x  x  Talbot  consecrated  by  Dr. 
Taylor  in  1722.'  On  this  point  it  is,  at  any  rate,  only  fair 
to  quote  the  words  of  one  of  the  latest  and  best  informed 
historians  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church. 

It  has  been  positively  asserted  that  Talbot,  when  an  old 
man,  upon  a  visit  to  England,  was  consecrated  to  the  Episco- 
by  the  English  Nonjuring  Bishops.  Anderson,  Hawks, 
Wilberforce,  and  Caswall  all  say  so,  apparently  all  following 
the  same  original  authority,  whatever  that  may  be.  The  Rev. 
Dr.  Hills,  in  his  '  History  of  the  Church  in  Burlington,'  dis- 
cusses the  subject  exhaustively,  and  maintains  the  same  asser- 
tion. In  vol.  i.  of  Bishop  Perry's  '  History  of  the  American 
Episcopal  Church  '  is  a  Monograph  by  Rev.  John  Fulton  in 
which  he  re-examines  the  whole  case,  and  arrives  at  the  con- 
clusion, which  seems  without  doubt  to  be  the  truth,  that 
Talbot  never  received  such  consecration  ;  and  that  the  tradition 
Itself  arose  from  confounding  his  name  with  that  of  another 
man.1 

There  was  only  one  other  bishop  consecrated  in  this 
first  irregular  succession,  Timothy  Newmarsh.  The  evi- 
of  his  consecration  is  a  manuscript  notice  in  a 
copy  of  Hickes  •  On  Schism,'  once  belonging  to  Bishop 
Newmarsh,  and  later  to  his  descendant,  Dr.  F.  G.  Lee. 
It  runs:  "Ye  Dr.  Timothy  Newmarsh  was  raised  to  ye 
Apostolic  Order  in  Mr.  Blackbourne's  Chappie  situate 
within  Graye's  Inn  uppon  Sundaye,  ye  twenty-ninth  day 
of  May,  L726,byMr.  EenryHall  and  Dr.  Richard  Welton 

'   Hi  \tory  of  the  A  copal  Church,  l>y  S.  D.  McConnell,  D.I>.. 

7th  i  .in.,  p.  LOS,  note, 


SECOND  IEEEGULAE  SUCCESSION  351 

in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Thomas  Martyn,  Mr.  Lee,  Mr. 
Calvert,  Mr.  Burrows  from  Thame,  and  divers  others.' 


Thus  ends  the  story  of  the  first  irregular  succession, 
which  certainly  seems  to  me  to  be  more  excusable  in  its 
origin  than  the  second.  The  cruel  disadvantage  at  which 
the  Church  in  America  was  placed  through  the  lack  of 
episcopal  supervision  might  palliate  almost  any  attempt 
to  supply  a  remedy.  But  the  second  succession  arose 
from  what  one  cannot  but  call  the  wilfulness  of  one  man, 
who,  strictly  speaking,  had  no  right  to  interfere  in  English 
affairs  at  all,  for  he  was  a  Scotch  Churchman,  and  he  was 
clearly  travelling  outside  his  province  when  he  took  a 
most  important  and  quite  uncanonical  step  on  his  own 
responsibility.  Bishop  Archibald  Campbell  had  always 
been  a  '  Usager,'  and  surely,  when  the  Usagers  were  suc- 
cessful all  along  the  line,  he  might  have  been  satisfied. 
But  no ;  they  did  not  go  far  enough  for  him  in  the 
direction  of  restoring  primitive  usages,  so  he  took  upon 
himself  to  consecrate  a  bishop  who  would  go  farther,  and 
then  another  immediately  followed  ;  and  it  is  to  this  line 
that  the  latest  Nonjurors  who  lingered  on  in  England 
belonged.  Dr.  Rawlinson's  curt  account  is :  '  Roger 
Laurence,  M.A.,  consecrated  by  Mr.  Arch.  Campbell. 
Thos.  Deacon  consecrated  by  the  same  person  at  the 
same  time.'  He  gives  no  date,  but  we  know  from  other 
sources  that  it  was  in  1733.  Whether  Campbell  conse- 
crated both  solus,  or  whether,  as  some  say,  he  first  conse- 
crated Laurence,  and  then  the  two  consecrated  Deacon, 
is  not  a  point  of  importance,  and  need  not  detain  us. 

Boger  Laurence  (1670-1736)  had  been  an  eminent 
man  before  he  joined  the  Nonjurors,  and  when  he  joined 
them  he  held  so  conspicuous  a  place  in  their  community 


352  THE  NONJURORS 

that  it  is  a  wonder  he  was  not  chosen  to  be  one  of  their 
bishops  in    the   regular   line.      His   mental    history  is  a 
peculiar  one.     He  was  the  son  of  a  London  «  cittizen  and 
armourer,'  who  was  probably  a  dissenter,  for  Roger  '  re- 
ceived baptism  among  the  dissenters,'  and  was  engaged  in 
mercantile  pursuits  at  home  and  abroad  for  many  years. 
But  he  took  to  the  study  of  divinity,  and  that  study  made 
him  doubtful  about  the  validity  of  his  baptism;  and  so 
at   the   mature   age  of  thirty-eight   he   was  '  informally 
baptised  at  Christ  Church,  Newgate  Street,  on  March  31, 
1708,  by  John  Bates,  reader  of  the  Church.'     The  matter 
was   taken  up  warmly,  among  others  by  the  Bishop  of 
London,  Dr.  Compton,  in  whose  diocese  the  baptism  took 
place ;  and  the  case  became  a  sort  of  test  case  to  try  that 
question  which  has  always  been  a  moot  question  in  the 
Church    of    England,   viz.    the  validity  of    lay   baptism. 
Laurence  was  quite  ready  to  defend  himself,  and  before 
the   year   1708   was   ended   had   written    and   published 
anonymously  a  treatise  entitled  '  Lay  Baptism  Invalid,  or 
an  Essay  to  prove  that  such  Baptism  is  Null  and  Void 
when  administer'd  in  opposition  to  the  Divine  Eight  of 
the  Apostolical  Succession.'      The  book  passed  through 
several  editions,  and  a  warm  controversy  arose.     A  sort 
<if    episcopal   conference   was   held    in    April    1712    at  a 
dinner-party  of  thirteen  bishops  at  Lambeth  Palace  (an 
arrangement  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  eighteenth 
century),  and  a  declaration  was  drawn  up  in  favour  (if  the 
validity  <>f  baptism  performed  by  non-episcopally  ordained 
ministers.      This  declaration   was   then    brought   before 
Convocation,  but  after  seme  debate  rejected  by  the  Lower 
lion  e.      Laurence  had  a  hosl  of  antagonists,  including 
four  bishops-  Burnet,  Fleetwood,   Talbot  (of  Durham), 
and  White  Eennetl     and  also  one  who   was   more  for- 
midable  than  anj  I  i  hop,  Joseph  Bingham,  who  published 


ROGER  LAURENCE  353 

his  '  Scholastical  History  of  the  Practice  of  the  Church 
in  reference  to  Administration  of  Baptism  by  Laymen  ' 
(Part  I.  in  1712,  Part  II.  in  1714).  It  was  originally  in- 
tended to  be  only  a  single  chapter  in  the  '  Antiquities,'  but 
grew  on  his  hands,  and  appeared  as  a  separate  treatise  to 
meet  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Laurence.  Hickes  and  Brett 
came  to  Laurence's  aid,  and  as  their  knowledge  of  the 
Church  was  perhaps  equal  even  to  that  of  Bingham,  they 
were  most  powerful  auxiliaries.  This  brought  Laurence 
into  communication  with  the  Nonjurors,  and  especially 
with  Hickes,  their  head,  who  soon  won  him  over ;  for  we 
find  among  the  Nonjuring  ordinations,  '  1714,  Nov.  30, 
Eoger  Laurence,  or.  d.  by  Dr.  Hickes.'  Very  soon  after 
his  ordination  he  must  have  become  minister  of  the  Non- 
jurors' oratory  on  College  Hill  in  the  City  of  London,  for 
within  a  year  and  a  half  an  ordination  took  place  '  in  Mr. 
Laurence's  Chapel '  there.  Laurence  joined  the  Usagers, 
and  was  probably  the  writer  of  the  tract  already  noticed, 
'Mr.  Leslie's  Defence,  &c.' *  Charles  Wheatley,  the  well- 
known  author  of  the  '  Rational  Illustration  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,'  was  a  friend  of  Laurence,  and  the 
fact  that  the  one  became  a  Nonjuror  and  the  other  did 
not  in  no  way  interfered  with  their  friendship  ;  so  on 
Laurence's  death  Rawlinson  wrote  to  Wheatley  to  inquire 
about  his  effects,  to  which  Wheatley  replied :  '  I  believe 
most  of  the  books  in  Mr.  Laurence's  catalogue  were  in 
his  library.  Most  of  his  chapel  furniture  I  had  seen  ;  but 
his  pix  and  his  cruet,  his  box  for  unguent  and  oil,  I  sup- 
pose you  do  not  enquire  after.' 2  It  must  be  remem- 
bered in  reference  to  the  last  item  that  although  the 
anointing  with  oil  was  not  one  of  the  four  points  insisted 

1  See  supra,  p.  299. 

2  Quoted  in  Notes  and  Queries,  No.  52,  October  26,  1850,  above  the 
signature,  'J.  Yeowell,  Hoxton,'  an  excellent  authority  on  all  Nonjuring 
subjects. 

A  A 


351  THE  NONJURORS 

upon  by  the  '  Essentialists,'  yet  the  '  Offices  for  Confir- 
mation and  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,'  attached  to  the 
4  Communion  Office  '  of  1718  which  was  generally  adopted 
by  the  Usagers,  included  the  use  of  the  chrism  in  con- 
tinuation, and  anointing  in  the  visitation  of  the  sick  ; 
and,  of  course,  after  Laurence's  consecration  in  1733,  and 
still  more  after  the  appearance  of  Dr.  Deacon's  Prayer 
Book  in  1734,  the  'box  for  unguent  and  oil '  would  be 
essential.  Laurence,  however,  only  survived  his  conse- 
cration for  three  years,  dying  at  Beckenham  on  March  6, 
1736.  The  other  bishop  consecrated  with  him  survived 
much  longer  and  came  more  to  the  front. 

Thomas  Deacon  (1697-1753)  was  probably,  like  Lau- 
rence, a  Londoner.  He  was  certainly  in  London  in  1715, 
when,  it  is  said,  he  'was  a  prime  agent  in  the  rising/ 
As  he  was  then  little  more  than  a  boy,  this  seems  impos- 
sible ;  but  nothing  is  more  striking  in  Deacon  than  his 
extraordinary  precocity.  This  may  have  been  the  reason 
why  Collier  ordained  him  before  the  canonical  age. 
'  1715[-6].  Mar.  1.  Thos.  Deacon,  ord.  d.  in  Mr.  Gandy's 
Chapel  in  Scrope  Court,  against  St.  Andrew's  Church, 
Holbournc,  by  Mr.  Collier  in  presence  of  Mr.  Peck,  Mr. 
Laurence,  and  Mr.  Wignall,  preist  by  the  same  Bishop, 
Mar.  19,  1715-6.'  Hardly  was  he  ordained  priest  when 
he  was  charged  with  exercising  his  priestly  functions  in  a 
way  which  brought  him  into  trouble.  He  tells  us  him- 
self that  he  was  '  accused  of  having  absolved  Justice  Hall 
and  Parson  Paul  at  the  Gallows,  Tyburn,  after  the  Rebel- 
lion in  '15,  and  having  declared  that  the  act  for  which 
they  dyed  was  meritorious. '  But  he  absolutely  denies 
the  charge. 

I  oao  not  only  affirm  that  I  did  not  officiate  with  those 
unfortunate  gentlemen  in  their  dying  moments,  but  also  inform 
the  Publiok  that  bhe  clergyman  who  did  was  the  Rev.  EVanois 


THOMAS  DEACON  355 

Peck,  M.A.,  formerly  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge ;  and  can 
venture  to  assert  that  neither  he  nor  any  other  person  did  then 
and  there  absolve  them.  I  never  said  to  them  that  the  act  was 
meritorious.1 

But  he  owned  to  John  Byroni  that  he  composed  the 
dying  speeches  of  Hall  and  Paul,2  and  these,  which  may 
still  be  read,  were  remarkable  productions  for  one  so 
young.  He  denies,  however,3  that  he  was  driven  from 
England  in  consequence  of  his  connection  with  these 
unfortunate  men,  and,  in  doing  so,  gives  us  a  piece  of 
autobiography : 

I  staid  in  London,  and  appeared  publicly  there  every  day, 
for  above  three  months  after  the  execution  of  the  Eev.  Mr.  Paul 
and  John  Hall,  Esq.  And  when  I  went  to  Holland,  it  was  not 
at  all  on  account  of  my  behaviour  with  regard  to  them.  There 
I  resided  upon  my  own  fortune.  And  so  far  was  I  from  study- 
ing Physic,  that  I  had  not  at  that  time  the  least  intention  of 
engaging  in  that  profession  ;  but  entered  upon,  and  prosecuted 
it  afterwards  in  London,  under  the  particular  direction,  and 
with  the  kind  assistance  of  my  best  of  friends,  Dr.  Mead.4 

He  does  not  mention  the  date  of  his  return  to  London, 
but  he  was  probably  not  long  away,  for  we  hear  of  him 
vaguely  as  '  once  a  Nonjuring  minister  in  Aldersgate 
Street,  London,' s  and  this  must  have  been  before  1719  ; 
moreover,  his  first  publication  (1718)  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  written  abroad.  That  publication  was  a  con- 
tribution to  the  Usages  controversy,  entitled  '  The  Doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Borne  concerning  Purgatory,  &c.,' 6  and 

1  See  Manchester  Vindicated  [from  Jacobitism],  being  a  compleat  Collec- 
tion of  the  Papers  lately  published  in  defence  of  that  Town,  in  the  '  Chester 
Courant'  (1749). 

2  See  Private  Journal  and  Literary  Remains  of  John  Byrom,  vol.  i. 
part  i.  p.  178. 

3  See  Mancliester  Vindicated,  No.  10. 

4  For  an  account  of  Dr.  Bichard  Mead,  see  Hearne's  Collections,  iii.  124 
and  Nichols's  Literary  Illustrations  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  v.  149. 

5  See  Gentleman's  Magazine,  vol.  for  1746,  p.  390. 
*  See  supra,  p.  305-6. 


356  THE  NONJURORS 

is  another  striking  instance  of  his  precocity,  for  he  was 
only  just  of  age.  The  fact  of  so  youthful  a  combatant 
rushing  into  the  fray  caused  great  offence.  In  the  next 
year,  1719,  a  thinly  veiled  attack  upon  him  appeared  in 
'  A  Dialogue  in  Vindication  of  our  present  Liturgy  and 
Service :  between  Timothy,  a  Churchman,  and  Thomas, 
an  Essentialist,'  Thomas  being  obviously  Thomas  Deacon, 
whom  Timothy  taunts  with  his  youth  and  with  having 
been  ordained  at  an  uncanonical  age,  and  pleasantly 
remarks,  *  I  see  two  things  very  ill  coupled,  Boy  and 
Confidence '  ;  and  in  1720  Matthias  Earbery,  having  at- 
tacked Brett  in  a  rather  rough  fashion,  turns  to  Deacon  : 
'  Mr.  Deacon's  Hypothesis  comes  on  the  stage  next,  a 
very  pretty  one  and  worthy  of  his  years.' '  Deacon  hardly 
seems  to  have  deserved  these  mortifying  imputations  of 
youthful  presumption.  He  owns  modestly  in  the  Dedi- 
cation of  his  really  remarkable  book  to  Brett :  ■  I  have 
followed  your  Precepts  in  producing  the  Eecords  of  the 
Primitive  Church;  I  have  appealed  to  Tradition  which 
you  have  so  learnedly  defended  ;  I  have  made  your  example 
my  Pattern,  though  I  am  sensible  I  come  very  far  short 
of  imitation.'  In  short,  he  was  content  to  be  a  humble 
follower  of  Dr.  Brett,  whom  he  very  probably  helped  in 
the  compilation  of  the  Nonjuring  Liturgy  of  1717.  He 
wisely  took  no  notice  of  the  attacks  made  upon  him,  and 
about  the  time  when  they  were  being  made  (1719-20) 
migrated  from  London  to  Manchester,  where  he  remained 
for  the  rest  of  his  life,  thirty-three  years,  practising 
medicine  with  great  success  and  ministering  to  a  Non- 
juring  congregation.  His  oratory  was  in  Fennel  Street, 
but  whether  in  his  own  house  or  in  a  room  hard  by  is  not 
c<  rtam.  His  'use*  up  to  the  time  of  his  consecration 
would  probably  be  that  of  the  book  of  1718  ;  but  in  L734 
'   Urjkctions  vpon  Modem  Fanaticism,  by  M.  E. 


DEACON'S  PKAYEE  BOOK  OF  1734  357 

he  brought  out  a  remarkable  work,  the  first  part  of  which 
became  the  general  service-book  of  this  section  of  the 
Nonjurors.  Deacon  does  not  put  his  name  to  it,  but  there 
is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  it  is  his.     Its  title  is, 

A  Corapleat  Collection  of  Devotions,  Taken  from  the  Apo- 
stolical Constitutions,  the  Ancient  Liturgies,  and  the  Common 
Prayer-Book  of  the  Church  of  England.  Part  I.  comprehend- 
ing the  Public  Offices  of  the  Church.  Humbly  offered  to  the 
Consideration  of  the  present  Churches  of  Christendom,  Greek, 
Eoman,  English,  and  all  others.     1734. 

Part  II.  contains  Devotions  for  Private  Use.  The  com- 
piler explains  his  object  in  the  Preface  thus  : 

The  following  collection  is  founded  upon  two  Principles. 
(1)  That  the  best  method  for  all  Churches  and  Christians  to 
follow  is  to  submit  to  all  doctrines,  practices,  worship  and 
discipline  of  the  Ancient,  Universal  Church  of  Christ  from  the 
beginning,  to  the  end  of  the  Fourth  Century;  (2)  That  the 
Liturgy  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  is  the  most  ancient 
Christian  Liturgy  extant ;  perfectly  pure  and  free  from  inter- 
polation ;  and  that  the  book  itself  contains  at  large  the  doctrines, 
laws  and  settlements,  which  the  three  first  and  purest  ages  of 
the  Gospel  did  with  one  consent  believe  and  submit  to. 

The  epithet  '  compleat '  is  fully  justified  by  its  con- 
tents ;  for  it  contains,  after  General  Kubrics,  Calendar,  and 
Tables,  '  an  Order  for  Morning  and  for  Evening  Prayer, 
Prayers  for  Catechumens,  Energumens,  Candidates  for 
Baptism,  and  Penitents,  with  Forms  of  Admission,  The 
Penitential  Office  (for  "Wednesdays  and  Fridays),  The 
Holy  Liturgy,  Ministrations  of  Baptism  (Infants  and 
Adults),  The  Forms  for  consecrating  the  oil  and  milk 
and  honey  for  Baptism,  The  Order  of  Confirmation,  The 
Form  of  consecrating  the  Chrism  for  Confirmation, 
Private  Baptism,  Matrimony,  Churching  of  Women,  The 
Visitation  of  the  Sick,  The  Form  of  consecrating  the  oil 
for  the  Sick,  The  Communion  of  the  Sick,  The  Burial  of 


358  THE  NONJURORS 

the  Dead,  The  Form  of  celebrating  the  Holy  Eucharist 
at  the  Burial  of  the  Dead,  The  Consecration  and  Ordina- 
tion of  Bishops,  Priests,  Deacons,  and  Deaconesses ' ;  and 
Part  II.  is  quite  as  '  compleat '  in  its  way,  containing 
'  Devotions  for  Morning  and  Evening  and  the  Ancient 
Hours  of  Prayer,  The  Hymn  (the  Sanctus)  with  the 
Proper  Prefaces,  Acts  of  glorification  of  God,  Collects  for 
Wednesdays  and  Fridays,  Prayers  for  Fasting  Days, 
Penitential  Prayers,  Thanksgiving  for  the  Sabbath, 
Devotions  to  be  used  in  Church,  Devotions  for  the  Altar, 
and  an  Office  for  the  use  of  those  who  communicate  daily 
in  private,  by  reason  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not 
publickly  celebrated  in  the  Church,  Commemoration  of 
the  Dead,  Grace  before  and  after  meat.' 

There  is  also  an  Appendix  containing  extracts  from  a 
large  number  of  English  divines,  and  •  a  Supplement, 
being  an  Essay  to  procure  Catholick  Communion  upon 
Catholick  Principles.'  ! 

Deacon's  Prayer  Book  of  1734  affords  a  curious  in- 
stance of  the  way  in  which  extremes  sometimes  meet. 
As  the  title  shows,  one  of  the  sources,  the  first-named,  from 
which  it  was  taken  was  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  the 
genuineness  and  antiquity  of  which  were  matters  of  hot 
controversy.  But  there  was  one  man  at  least  who  '  was 
satisfied  that  they  were  of  equal  value  with  the  four 
Gospels  '  ;  nay,  ■  that  they  were  the  most  sacred  of  the 
Canonical  books  of  the  New  Testament.' '  That  man  was 
William  Whiston,  the  Arian,  or,  as  he  preferred  to  call 
If,  the  Eusebian.  He  advocated  as  strongly  as 
Deacon  the  practice  oi  brine  immersion  and  of  anointing 
bhe  dck,  not,  as  both  declare,  for  extreme  unction  like  the 

'   A  vi  ry  full  ami  interesting  account  of  this  book  will  be  found  over  the 

iw  '  H. .».'  in  Ths  Boydliat  fur  ipril  L898,  pp.  7-10. 

WUHem  Winston,  by  himself,  pp.  179,  196,  B89,  to. 


DEACON  AND  WHISTON  359 

Koman  Church,  but  for  recovery,  according  to  the  text 
of  St.  James,  like  the  Greek.  Whiston  also  professed 
like  Deacon  to  go  back  to  primitive  times,  as  the  title 
of  the  book  in  which  his  views  are  most  fully  stated, 
•  Primitive  Christianity  Eevived,'  shows.  Deacon  and 
Whiston  were  brought  into  a  sort  of  connection  through 
their  common  friend  John  Byrom,  and  there  is  a  letter 
(April  1731)  from  Deacon  to  Byrom  who  had  been  can- 
vassing for  subscriptions  to  Deacon's  proposed  translation 
of  Tillemont's  '  Ecclesiastical  Memoirs  of  the  First  Six 
Centuries,'  and,  among  others,  had  canvassed  Whiston ; 
it  ends :  '  You  may  tell  Whiston  it  is  done  by  one  who 
has  the  restoration  of  Primitive  Christianity  at  heart  as 
much  as  himself,  and  is  a  friend  to  the  Constitutions,1 
though  he  cannot  go  all  his  lengths,  being  not  quite  so 
hasty  in  his  judgment,  but  agrees  with  him  in  his 
wishes,  foundations,  and  designs.' 2 

Dr.  Deacon  (he  seems  to  have  been  called  '  doctor '  on 
the  principle  on  which  the  poor  always  speak  of  their 
medical  attendant  as  '  doctor,'  for  there  is  no  evidence  of 
his  having  taken  a  doctor's  degree  in  either  divinity  or 
medicine)  continued  to  act  as  physician  of  both  body  and 
soul  at  Manchester,  where  he  was  very  highly  respected. 
He  was  undoubtedly  a  staunch  Jacobite,  but  he  did  not 
make  Jacobitism  part  of  his  religion  : 

I  adopt  [he  says]  no  political  Principles  into  my  Eeligion, 
but  what  are  expressed  in  our  Common  Prayer-Booh,  entitled 
'  A  Compleat  Collection  of  Devotions '  which  is  entirely  free 
from  all  objections  of  this  nature ;  the  Form  of  admitting  a 
member  into  our  church  has  not  one  word  in  it  relating  to 
State-matters  ;  and  I  have  told  new  converts  that  I  hoped  they 
did  not  apply  to  me  on  the  account  of  National  Affairs  and 
Government  Prayers,  for  we  went  on  quite  a  different  scheme.3 

1  That  is,  the  Apostolical  Constitutions. 

2  Byrom's  Remains,  vol.  i.  part  ii.  p.  499. 

3  See  Manchester  Vindicated,  etc.,  No.  7,  December  9,  174G. 


360  TIIE  NONJURORS 

But  poor  Dr.  Deacon  suffered  cruelly  in  his  own  family 
for  the  Jacobite  cause.  In  the  rising  of  '45  his  three  sons 
all  enlisted  in  the  '  Manchester  Kegiment '  under  Colonel 
Towneley,  and  the  sad  result  was  that  he  lost  them  all : 
one  was  imprisoned,  and  then  transported  for  life;  another 
died  while  he  was  being  taken  from  Manchester  to  London 
for  trial ;  and  another,  Thomas  Theodoras,  was  tried  and 
executed  on  Kennington  Common  in  July  1746.  His  head, 
together  with  that  of  his  companion-in-arms,  Thomas 
Syddall,  was  sent  to  Manchester,  and  fixed,  according  to 
the  barbarous  custom  of  the  age,  on  the  top  of  the  public 
Exchange.  When  the  bereaved  father  first  gazed  at  the 
horrible  sight  he  naturally  took  off  his  hat  and  uttered  a 
prayer ;  and  some  had  actually  the  brutality  to  complain 
in  print  of  his  so  doing.1  Deacon  probably  found  solace 
for  his  troubles  in  congenial  literary  work,  for  in  the  same 
year  (1746)  he  published  a  book  entitled  '  The  Form  of 
admitting  a  Convert  into  the  Communion  of  the  Church.' 
The  book  contained  other  matter  which  was  only  too 
suitable  to  the  state  of  a  party  which  was  then  being 
persecuted  even  to  the  death,  viz.  : 

'  A  Litany  for  the  use  of  those  who  mourn  for  the  iniquities 
of  the  present  times  and  tremble  at  the  prospect  of  impending 
judgments, — Prayers  for  the  Church, — Prayers  to  be  used  upon 
;  Death  of  the  members  of  the  Church  as  soon  after  their 
departure  as  conveniently  may  he,'  and  'An  office  for  the  use 
of  those  who  by  unavoidable  necessity  are  deprived  of  the 
advantage  of  joining  in  offering  the  Sacrifice  and  of  receiving 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.' 

In  the  next  year  (1747)  he  published  another  work,  the 
magnitude  of  which  is  really  not  exaggerated  in  the  fol- 
lowing portentous  title  : 

September  ~2i.  l T 1 ' • ,  and  Man* 
'   0     bar  81,  1746. 


DEACON'S  'COMPREHENSIVE  VIEW  361 

A  Full,  True,  and  Comprehensive  View  of  Christianity : 
Containing  a  short  Historical  Account  of  Religion  from  the 
Creation  of  the  World  to  the  Fourth  Century  after  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ :  as  also  the  complete  duty  of  a  Christian  in 
relation  to  Faith,  Practice,  Worship  and  Eituals,  set  forth  sin- 
cerely without  regard  to  any  Modern  Church,  Sect  or  Party,  as 
it  is  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  was  delivered  by  the 
Apostles,  and  received  by  the  Universal  Church  of  Christ  during 
the  first  Four  Centuries.  The  whole  succinctly  and  fully  laid 
down  in  Two  Catechisms,  a  shorter  and  a  longer,  each  divided 
into  two  Parts ;  The  Shorter  being  suited  to  the  meanest 
capacity  and  calculated  for  the  use  of  Children  ;  and  the  longer 
for  that  of  the  more  knowing  Christian  (1747). 

The  '  two  Parts  '  are  :  (1)  Sacred  History ;  (2)  Christian 
Doctrine.  The  book  is  divided  into  '  Lessons,'  nearly  two 
hundred  in  number,  and  embraces  in  the  most  exhaustive 
way  all  the  views  of  the  '  Orthodox  British  Church.' 
Canon  Parkinson  refers  to  this  work  in  a  very  apprecia- 
tive notice  of  Deacon  in  a  note  to  his  admirable  edition 
of  Byrom's  '  Bemains  ' : l 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  this  admirable  scholar  did 
not  receive  encouragement  according  to  his  merits.  His  letters 
in  this  work  show  him  to  have  been  a  complete  master  of  the 
English  language,  of  a  ready  wit  and  indomitable  spirit ;  one 
who  ought  to  have  been  engaged  in  a  more  congenial  task  than 
elaborating  his  learned  yet  somewhat  arid  catechism,  and  carry- 
ing on  controversies  with  men  incapable  of  appreciating  his 
merits  and  their  own  immeasurable  inferiority. 

But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  Deacon  could  have 
found  '  a  more  congenial  task '  than  commending  his 
system,  in  which  he^believed  heart  and  soul,  in  what  he 
thought  to  be  the  most  effective  way,  though  it  was  the 
way  of  an  'arid  catechism.'  Deacon  was  a  strong  man, 
and,  though  he  was  much  opposed,  exercised  a  strong 
influence  at  Manchester,  not  only  over  laymen  like  John 

1  Vol.  i.  p.  500. 


3G2  THE  NONJURORS 

1  lymni,  but  even  over  the  whole  staff  of  clergy  connected 
with  the  Collegiate  Church.  We  have  a  curious  picture 
of  the  man  drawn  by  an  unknown  hand,  probably  his 
friend  Byrom,1  which  is  worth  inserting:  'As  the  dis- 
affection of  the  Town  of  Manchester  has  of  late  been  the 
chief  subject  both  of  public  and  private  conversation, 
I  had  the  curiosity  some  time  ago  to  pay  a  visit  to  that 
celebrated  place.'  After  declaring  that  he  saw  no  signs 
of  disaffection,  he  goes  on  : 

My  curiosity  being  now  pretty  well  satisfied  with  regard  to 
the  mobbing,  I  had  nothing  to  do  the  next  day  but  to  make 
some  enquiry  after  the  Nonjuring  Bishop  and  his  Congi-egation 
which  have  made  such  an  eminent  Figure  in  History.  The  title 
of  Bishop,  and  a  Bishop,  as  I  was  told,  of  pretty  near  the  same 
complexion  with  the  Roman  ones,  gave  me  an  Idea  of  some 
most  venerable  Personage,  who  never  stirr'd  out  without  his 
Equipage  and  proper  Habiliments,  with  a  posse  of  inferior 
clergy  to  attend  him  ;  but  this  Prelate  I  had  an  opportunity  of 
seeing  entirely  unattended.  He  was  dressed  just  like  other  men 
and  proved  to  be  nothing  more  than  a  Physician  in  the  Town, 
of  great  repute  for  his  Learning  and  Practice ;  who  (having  a 
Head  turned  a  little  more  to  religion  than  most  of  his  Fraternity) 
had,  by  an  industrious  search  into  the  writings  of  antiquity, 
discover'd,  or  thought  so  at  least,  a  more  pure  form  of  worship 
than  his  neighbours.  This  he  followed  himself,  and  admitted 
others,  dissatisfyd  with  other  forms,  to  practise  with  him.  As 
to  his  congregation  it  consisted,  according  to  the  account  I 
received,  of  about  a  score  of  persons,  the  greatest  Part  of  them 
women.  Such  is  the  man,  who,  one  would  think,  from  the  rout 
which  has  been  made  about  him,  threatens  the  destruction  of 
Three  Kingdoms,  the  Toleration  of  whom,  In  the  language  of 
sonic  people,  is  intolerable.  .  .  . 

The  Doctor,  I  own,  is  respected  by  most  of  the  clergy,  Bnd 
I  will  add  by  most  of  the  Laity  too.2 

it  is  Bad  to  learo  from  a  letter  of  John  Byrom  to 

ii'   writes,  it  will  lie  Men,  ns  a  stranger  to  Manchester,  but  that  wn* 
ko  put  people  nir  the  soent. 

\caied,  No.  LI,  February  84,  Tuesday,  1746  7.    The 
tromthe   sme  work,  No.  8,.November  11, 1746. 


BISHOPS  BEOWN  AND  PBICE  363 

William  Law  that  Deacon's  mind  failed,  and  that  he 
was  consequently  in  straitened  circumstances  in  his  last 
days.1  In  1753  he  died,  and  was  buried  in  St.  Anne's 
Churchyard,  Manchester,  where  the  following  character- 
istic inscription  was  placed  on  his  tomb  : 
© 

Ei  fj.7]  iv  a-ravpQ 
HERE    LIE    INTEEEED   THE     EEMAINS    (WHICH   THEOUGH 
MOBTALITY     IS     AT     PEESENT     COEEUPT,     BUT     WHICH 
SHALL     ONE     DAY     MOST      SUEELY     BE     EAISED     AGAIN 
TO      IMMOETALITY     AND     PUT      ON     INCOEEUPTION)      OF 

THOMAS    DEACON,   the    geeatest    of    sinnees 

AND  THE  MOST  UNWOETHY  OF  PEIMITIVE  BISHOPS, 
WHO  DIED  16TH  FEB.  1753,  IN  THE  56TH  YEAE  OF 
HIS  AGE  ;  AND  OF  SAEAH  HIS  WIFE,  WHO  DIED 
JULY  4,  1745  IN  THE  54TH  YEAE  OF  HEE  AGE.  THE 
LOED  GEANT  THE  FAITHFUL,  HEEE  UNDEELYING,  THE 
MEECY   OF   THE    LOED    IN   THAT   DAY. — II.    TIM.    I.    18. 

'Ev    TOVT(p    VIKO. 

Of  the  remaining  five  bishops  in  this  line  we  have  con- 
flicting, and,  with  one  exception,  very  scanty  accounts. 
The  first  is  Bishop  Brown,  who  is  said  to  have  been  Lord 
John  Johnstone,  younger  son  of  the  Marquis  of  Annan- 
dale,  but  I  can  find  no  trustworthy  evidence  of  this ;  while 
two  responsible  writers,  one  of  whom  was  a  contemporary, 
give  quite  a  different   account.     In   Byrom's    '  Journal,' 
which  is  generally  to  be  relied  on,  we  read  :  '  P.  J.  Brown, 
M.D.  of  Manchester  (a  disciple  of  Dr.  Deacon),  succeeded 
the  Nonjuror,  Mr.  Kenrick  Price,  and  like  him  had  the 
title  of  Bishop.'     The  information  is  given  in  a  note  to  a 
long,  modest,  and  singularly  able  letter,  headed  '  P.  Brown 
to  John  Byrom,  Manchester,  December  29th,  1760,'  and 
signed  '  P.  Brown.'    It  was  written  in  answer  to  a  request 

1  See  Byrom's  Remains,  ii.  545. 


3G4  THE  NONJUBORS 

from  Byrom  that  '  P.  Brown '  would  send  him  '  one 
or  two  of  the  strongest  reasons  upon  which  the  general 
opinion  of  the  Apostles'  writing  the  New  Testament  in 
Greek  is  founded.'  Both  the  style  and  the  matter  of  the 
reply  are  admirable,  and  the  whole  gives  one  a  most 
favourable  impression  of  the  writer. ,  If  this  was  the 
bishop,  it  is  most  provoking  that  so  little  is  known  about 
him.1  Mr.  Aston  tells  us  in  his  '  Manchester  Guide '  (note 
to  p.  144) :  '  Dr.  Deacon  was  succeeded  by  a  Mr.  Kenrick 
Price,  a  grocer,  and  the  late  P.  J.  Browne,  M.D.,  who, 
as  well  as  Dr.  Deacon,  had  the  nominal  title  of  Bishops.' 
One  thing  seems  quite  clear,  that  Bishop  Brown  pre- 
deceased by  many  years  Bishop  Kenrick  Price  (1722-90), 
who  from  the  above  notices  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
consecrated.  It  is  not  quite  accurate  to  say  that  Mr. 
Price  succeeded  Dr.  Deacon,  because  he  was  actually 
consecrated  by  Deacon  on  March  8,  1751-2,  and  Deacon 
survived  until  the  following  year ;  but  as  Deacon  was 
hors  de  combat  in  his  later  days,  Kenrick  Price  might  be 
virtually  regarded  as  his  successor.  Bishop  Price  lived 
on  until  September  15,  1790,  and  was  evidently  during 
that  time  the  ruling  spirit  in  this  line  of  Nonjurors.  His 
epitaph,  which  is  quoted  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for 
September  1792,  says  that 

for  more  than  thirty  seven  years,  without  the  least  worldly 
profit,  he  presided  over  the  orthodox  remnant  of  the  ancient 
British  Church  in  Manchester,  with  truly  primitive  Catholic 
piety,  fervent  devotion,  integrity  and  simplicity  of  manners,  and 
every  trait  of  chai'acter  which  could  adorn  the  life  of  an  un- 
<l  primitive  bishop.  He  died,  Sep.  15,  1790,  in  the  G9th 
md  89th  of  his  episcopate. 

William  CarttoHght  (1730-99),  the  next  bishop,  was 
a  man  about  whom  v,r  have  Borne  really  interesting  in- 
formation, which  has  been  kindly  corrected  for  me  by 
Byrom'i  Rtmofcw,  vol.  11.  part  11.  pp.617  '2.'i. 


WILLIAM  CAKTWEIGHT  365 

W.  Phillips,  Esq.,  of  Shrewsbury,  who  has  long  been 
trying  to  gather  correct  information  about  Bishop  Cart- 
wright.  He  was  the  son  of  a  William  Cartwright,  of 
Newcastle-under-Lyne,  and  was  brought  up  as  an  apothe- 
cary. He  received  Holy  Orders,  probably  from  Bishop 
Deacon,  some  time  before  1764,  for  we  find  him  in  that 
year  described  as  '  one  of  Dr.  Deacon's  clergy,'  'living  in 
his  own  house  in  London,'  and  '  married  upon  one  of  Dr. 
Deacon's  daughters.'  Our  informant  is  Bishop  Forbes, 
who  on  the  occasion  of  his  visit  to  London  had  several 
interviews  with  him,  '  where  free  and  open  conversations 
passed  between  us  without  any  manner  of  reserve.  He 
appears  to  be  a  Person  who  has  at  heart  to  promote  the 
interest  of  Eeligion  upon  true,  genuine  Catholic  principles, 
and  as  one  that  asketh  for  the  old  paths.' :  Cartwright 
himself  tells  us  that  he  lived  in  London  until  1769  or 
thereabouts.  He  then  settled  in  Shrewsbury  where  he 
practised  medicine,  and  was  known  as  par  excellence  '  the 
Apothecary.'  When  he  was  in  practice  he  resided  in  a 
house  in  the  Mardol,  but  when  he  retired  from  business 
he  went  to  live  in  the  Abbey  Foregate,  where  he  died. 
Details  about  his  ministerial  life  which  otherwise  might 
be  considered  trifling  become  interesting  when  we  re- 
member that  he  was  virtually  the  last  of  his  clan  about 
whom  anything  really  definite  is  known.  We  learn,  then, 
from  '  Salopian  Shreds  and  Patches  '  (August  27,  1879) 
that  he  was  consecrated  bishop,  '  after  being  examined 
by  a  superior,  in  1780,  by  Bishop  Price  of  Manchester, 
who  came  over  to  Shrewsbury  for  that  purpose ; '  and 
his  daughter  gives  us — or  rather  gave  'W.  H.  W.,'  who 
imparted  it  to  «  Shropshire  Notes  and  Queries  ' — the 
following  information  about  him  : 

1  See  Journals  of  Episcopal  Visitations  of  Robert  Forbes,  Bp.  of  Boss 
and  Caithness,  p.  35. 


3GG  THE  NONJURORS 

Mr.  Harley  recollects  being  at  my  father's  house  the  even- 
ing before  my  youngest  sister,  Sarah  Alicia,  was  buried;  that 
he  accompanied  the  family  to  prayers  (in  an  upper  room)  where 
my  father  read  the  Burial  Service,  and  then  desired  all  to  dry 
up  their  tears,  for  she  was  happy.  She  died  Oct.  3,  1797. 
My  father  had  a  room  at  the  top  of  the  house  for  the  prayer- 
room,  which  was  never  used  for  any  other  purpose.  My  mother 
had  a  chamber-organ  in  the  dining-room,  on  which  she  played  ; 
hut  I  never  knew  her  performing  in  the  church  service  ;  though 
I  think  I  have  heard  she  had  done  so — probably  when  the 
congregation  was  larger. 

There  is  elsewhere  a  fuller  account,  which,  however, 
quite  tallies,  as  will  be  seen,  with  what  is  stated  in  the 
last  sentence  : 

The  Bishop's  appearance  was  dignified  and  venerable,  his 
person  handsome,  and  his  manners  those  of  a  perfect  gentle- 
man. He  appears  by  the  benevolence  of  his  disposition,  and 
respect  entertained  for  his  virtues  and  learning,  to  have  acquired 
the  general  esteem  and  regard  of  his  contemporaries.  The  con- 
gregation, as  far  as  the  recollection  of  his  daughter  serves, 
was  very  limited ;  indeed,  after  the  death  of  Dean  [sic]  Pod- 
more,  was  confined  to  his  own  family.  The  service  was  per- 
formed by  the  Bishop  in  his  dining-room,  at  the  upper  end  of 
which  was  an  organ,  which  his  wife  played.  Over  the  fire-place 
was  a  painting  of  the  Bishop  in  his  Episcopal  robes  which  is  in 
the  possession  of  his  daughter,  Mrs.  Thomas,  of  Monmouth. 
This  congregation  went  to  Church,  and  he  allowed  his  family 
to  go  there  ;  he  did  not  wish  to  be  considered  a  dissenter.  He 
wished  to  have  the  wine  at  Communion  mixed  with  water. 
Be  administered  the  Sacrament  standing  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
kneeling  on  Week-days.     He  confirmed  at  the  time  of  baptism. 

Then,  after  some  details  which  need  not  be  inserted,  there 
is  an  interesting  account  of  a  baptism  : 

Elizabeth  Helen,  daughter  of  William  and  Elizabeth 
Thomas,  was  horn,  Friday,  June  3,  179G,  and  was  baptised 
with  triune  immersion  on  Sunday,  May  7,  1797,  being  the  3rd 
Sunday  after  Master;  was  oonfirmed  with  Holy  Chrism,  and 

OOmmunioated    Of   the    Buoharist  the  same  day  by  her  grand- 


CARTWEIGHT  NOT  A  JACOBITE  367 

father,  William  Cartwright,  Bishop  of  the  Orthodox  remnant  of 
the  Ancient  British  Church.     Sponsor,  the  said  Eliz:  Thomas.1 

Bishop  Cartwright  is  a  notable  illustration  of  the  fact 
that  as  the  years  rolled  on  the  Nonjurors  became  less  and 
less  a  political  body.  We  learn  this  not  only  negatively 
by  the  complete  absence  of  anything  political  in  con- 
nection with  him,  but  also  positively  from  his  own  direct 
words,  which  are  well  worth  quoting.  In  the  •  Salopian 
Shreds  and  Patches  '  we  are  told  that  there  is 

a  Letter  of  his  dated  Shrewsbury,  27  Sep.  1793  extant, 
addressed  to  Benjamin  Booth,  then  a  prisoner  in  Lancaster 
Castle  for  alleged  treasonable  conspiracy  and  sedition.  Booth 
appears  to  have  lived  in  Shrewsbury  but  removed  to  Man- 
chester. Walker,  a  merchant  in  Manchester,  with  one  gentle- 
man, one  surgeon,  and  several  persons  of  lower  rank,  including 
Booth,  were  charged  with  treasonable  conspiracy,  and  it 
happened  that  Booth  was  tried  alone  before  the  others,  con- 
victed, and  sentenced  to  twelve  months'  imprisonment.  But  at 
Lancaster  Assizes,  April  2,  1794,  the  other  persons  were  tried, 
and  Booth,  though  then  a  prisoner,  was  included  in  the  indict- 
ment. The  whole  were  honourably  acquitted,  and  the  principal 
and  only  material  witness  against  them,  Thomas  Dunn,  was  at 
once  committed  for  perjury,  and  on  April  25,  1794,  a  pardon 
from  the  Crown  was  granted  to  Benjamin  Booth.  The  letter 
of  Mr.  Cartwright  was  written  in  belief  of  Booth's  conviction 
on  true  evidence,  and  he  says  : 

'When  you  wrote  to  me  soon  after  the  death  of  Bishop 
Price  I  little  expected  that  ever  I  should  have  seen  your  name 
in  the  public  papers  on  such  an  occasion  as  that  which  has 
rendered  you  so  conspicuous,  and  reduced  you  to  that  situation 
which  your  criminal  conduct  has  so  justly  deserved.  .  .  .  You 
well  know,  or  once  did  know,  that  unfeigned  allegiance,  in  all 
civil  matters,  to  your  rightful  and  lawful  sovereign,  is  an 
essential  doctrine  and  duty  of  Christianity.  .  .  .  Possibly  you 
may  deceive  yourself  with  a  notion  that  you  were  doing  right, 
in  endeavouring  to  overturn  the  present  established  system  of 

1  From  Salopian  Shreds  and  Patclies,  August  27,  1879.  It  is  added  in 
brackets  :  ['  This  narrative  is  copied  from  an  unpublished  MS.  formerly  in 
possession  of  the  late  Mr.  H.  Pidgeon,  of  Shrewsbury.'] 


368  THE  NONJURORS 

government,  because  some  of  our  religious  predecessors  attempted 
in  the  years  1715  and  1745  to  dethrone  the  then  reigning  family. 
And  give  me  leave  to  tell  you  that  those  attempts,  whether 
right  or  wrong,  whether  justifiable  or  not,  were  undertaken  on 
entire  different  and  opposite  principles  to  those  on  which  you 
must  have  engaged  with  the  new  disturbers  of  the  public 
peace.  The  former  attempts  were  not  undertaken  to  overturn 
or  alter  the  constitution  of  the  government  of  this  country. 
No !  it  was  a  competition  between  a  claimant  to  the  throne; 
who  was  thought  to  have  been  unjustly  and  illegally  dis- 
possessed of  his  right,  and  him  who  withheld  that  supposed 
right  from  him.  That  competition,  you  well  know,  is  now  at 
an  end.  The  one  family  being  as  good  as  entirely  extinct,  and 
the  other  having  been  so  long  time  in  uninterrupted  possession, 
surely  we  need  not  now  hesitate  which  of  these  God  has  chosen 
to  reign  over  us.  He  has  declared  "  by  Me  Kings  reign  " — 
and  I  believe  there  is  not  now  one  person  of  our  Communion 
who  does  not  recognise  King  George  as  the  only  rightful  King 
of  Great  Britain.' 

The  bishop  then  exhorts  Booth  to  '  repentance  and  the 
sincere  contrition  described  in  the  CXLth  lesson,  p.  400 
of  our  Catechism ' — that  is,  the  Catechism  put  forth  by 
Bishop  Deacon,  '  A  Full,  True  and  Comprehensive  View 
of  Christianity,'  in  1747 — and  concludes  :  '  Your  faithful 
but  afflicted  pastor  and  friend.  [Signed]  William  Cart- 
wright.'  '  It  will  be  observed  that  Cartwright  addresses 
Booth  not  as  one  who  had  once  been  under  his  charge 
win  ii  both  lived  at  Shrewsbury,  but  as  being  actually  so 
now  after  his  removal  to  Manchester ;  he  seems  to  have 
exercised  a  sort  of  episcopal  supervision  over  his  late 
father-in-law's  ilock  in  Lancashire.2 

In  accordance  with  the  sentiments  expressed  in  his 
admirable    Niter  to  Mr.  Booth,  Bishop  Cartwright  was 

opiam  Shreds  amd  Patehe»,JxH}  •">.  L876. 
NoUa  unii  <,'-,.     .  \,.i.  for  January  Tana  1866,  on  this  point. 
ii  is  Bometimea  spoken  of  us  if  he  were  the  las!  Nonjnring  bishop. 
Bat  tii>'  bishop's  Christian  Dame  was  Charles,  and  be  wasolearty  a  different 


CAETWEIGHT  AND  THE   AMEEICAN  CHUECH  369 

never  hostile  to  the  Church  established  under  '  King 
George,  the  only  rightful  king  ' ;  and  in  his  last  illness,  at 
his  special  request,  he  received  the  last  viaticum  at  the 
hands  of  the  Eev.  W.  G.  Eowland,  vicar  of  St.  Giles's, 
Shrewsbury,  and  was  buried  by  the  vicar  in  St.  Giles's 
Churchyard.  Mr.  Eowland  has  left  some  interesting 
reminiscences  of  Cartwright,  telling  us,  among  other 
things,  that  Bishop  Horsley,  when  on  a  visit  to  Shrews- 
bury, startled  some  of  the  good  people  by  maintaining 
that  Mr.  Cartwright  was  as  much  a  bishop  as  himself. 
Bishop  Horsley  was  just  the  man  to  make  such  a  remark; 
he  was  far  in  advance  of  his  day  in  realising  the  true, 
spiritual  nature  of  the  Church,  of  which  '  Establishment ' 
was  only,  in  logical  terms,  '  a  separable  accident.' 

But  perhaps  the  most  interesting  point  in  connec- 
tion with  Cartwright  is  his  relations  with  the  Ajnerican 
Church.  It  is  well  known  that  Seabury,  after  having  been 
disappointed  in  his  hopes  of  receiving  consecration  from 
the  English  bishops,  '  turned  his  eyes  to  Scotland  for  the 
desired  boon  '  ;  but  it  is  not  so  well  known  that  a  similar 
application  '  was  made  at  the  same  time  to  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  Nonjuring  Bishops  in  England.'  Cartwright 
maintained  a  constant  correspondence  with  Jonathan 
Boucher,  a  clergyman  who,  after  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, had  been  driven  out  of  America  for  his  loyalty ; 
another  clergyman  in  the  same  predicament  was  Thomas 
Bradbury  Chandler,  and  a  letter  addressed  to  him  by 
William  Cartwright  fully  explains  the  whole  transaction 
in  regard  to  the  consecration  of  a  bishop  for  America, 
and  also  gives  an  insight  into  the  mind  and  position  of 
Cartwright  and  the  later  Nonjurors  of  the  time  : 

Shrewsbury  :  August  30,  1784. 

Eev.  Sir, — Yesterday  I  received  a  letter  from  Bp.  Price  of 
Manchester,  enclosing  a  paper  written  by  the  Eev.  Mr.  Jonathan 

E  B 


370  THE  NONJURORS 

Boucher  of  which  the  following  is  an  abridged  copy  :  '  Mr.  Price 
is  requested  to  consult  Mr.  Cartwright  whether  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Seabury  can  be  consecrated  by  any  Nonjuring  bishop.  With 
respect  to  temporals  Dr.  Seabury  is,  and  expects  to  remain, 
independent  of  any  control  from  any  State.  But  if  there  be  any 
requisitions  of  a  spiritual  nature  which  Dr.  Seabury,  as  a  con- 
scientious member  of  the  Church  of  England  cannot  comply 
with,  Mr.  C.  is  requested  to  inform  his  friend  whether  he  knows 
of  any  Nonjuring  bishop  or  bishops,  of  the  late  Bp.  Gordon's 
principles,  and  where  they  reside.  From  a  review  of  the 
Liturgy  at  Mr.  Price's,  it  does  not  appear  that  anything  will  be 
required  which  Dr.  S.  may  not  very  safely  assent  to.'  The 
answer  to  these  queries  I  am  requested  to  forward  to  you. 
I  will  therefore  begin  with  the  first  of  them. 

When  I  resided  in  London,  which  I  left  near  15  years  ago, 
I  personally  knew  Bp.  Gordon,  but  had  no  particular  intimacy 
with  him,  as  he  was  a  gentleman  of  great  reserve ;  but  I  was 
upon  the  most  intimate  footing  with  one  of  his  presbyters,  the 
Rev.  James  Falconer,1  brother  of  the  Most  Rev.  Wm.  Falconer, 
many  years  primate  of  Scotland,  now  lately  deceased.  From 
him  I  was  well  informed  of  Bp.  Gordon's  principles  and  prac- 
tices in  Church  affairs.  I  also  at  that  time  corresponded  with 
some  of  the  Scotch  clergy,  and  from  them  learned  that  most  of 
their  principles  were  consonant  with  those  of  the  Primitive 
Catholick  Church.  Since  I  left  London  I  have  often  inquired 
after  the  State  of  the  Church  in  Scotland,  but  can  only  learn  of 
a  few  licensed  chapels  served  by  clergy  commonly  ordained  by 
the  Bp.  of  Carlisle.  So  my  answer  to  the  first  query  must  be, 
That  I  do  not  know  whether  there  be  one  orthodox  Bishop  left 
in  Scotland  or  England  besides  Bp.  Price  and  my  unworthy  self. 

To  (2)  '  whether  Dr.  S.  can  be  consecrated  by  any  Nonjuring 
bishop,'  I  reply  :  We  do  not  assume  the  character  of  non-juring 
Bishops,  though  undoubtedly  our  predecessors  had  it,  and  we 
derive  our  succession  from  the  hands  of  those  who  acknow- 
i  it.  But  we  assume  and  acknowledge  only  the  character 
or  title  of  Bishops  of  the  Orthodox  British  Church,  or  of  the 
Primitive  Catholick  Ohxiroh  in  Britain,  which  is  now  reduced  to 
I  small  remnant ;  bat  yet  such  as  I  trust  in  God  will  so  pre- 
the  (lepositum,  that  it  will  again  revive  and  flourish  when 

'   Mr.  Falconer  is  also  referred  to  l>y  Bishop  Forbes,  'I  read  pray.  I 
Mr.  .lumen  Faloonar  at  his  ohapel  in   Westminster.1  xc.    Journals,  a ■•. 


<BP.  SEABUEY  AND  THE  NONJUPJNG  BISHOPS'   371 

men  have  sufficiently  wearied  themselves  in  the  labyrinths  of 
error  and  innovation. 

(3)  '  The  Dr.  is  independent,  in  temporals,  of  any  control 
from  State.'  Had  he  said  that  he  was  independent  of  any  Civil 
State  in  Spirituals,  it  would  have  spoken  our  sentiments,  and 
there  would  have  been  great  probability  of  a  perfect  union  with 
us.  I  may  submit  to  the  Civil  State  under  which  I  live,  in 
temporals ;  but  in  spirituals  I  acknowledge  no  allegiance  or 
obedience  to  any  State,  but  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Church 
Catholick  in  the  three  first  centuries,  and  such  as  are  consonant 
thereto,  which  I  am  persuaded  the  Established  Church  (and 
that  I  call  the  Church  of  England)  in  a  great  variety  of  articles 
most  notoriously  violates,  and  obliges  her  clergy  to  violate.  , 

(4)  '  Erom  a  review  of  the  Liturgy  at  Mr.  P.'s,  Dr.  S.  may 
safely  assent  to  it.'  If  Dr.  S.  can  conscientiously  officiate  by 
that  Liturgy  at  present,  he  would,  when  consecrated,  be  fully 
authorized  to  frame  his  own  liturgy,  if  he  chose  to  do  so,  and 
cannot  be  lawfully  subject  to  any  control,  but  that  of  the  laws, 
customs  and  usages  of  the  primitive  Catholic  Church.  And 
provided  he  will  so  do,  nothing  more  ought  to  be  required  of 
him  by  any  consecrator  &C1 

(Signed)     William  Cartwright. 

1  In  the  churchyard  attached  to  S.  Giles's  Church, 
Shrewsbury,'  writes  Archdeacon  Allen  in  1861,  'lie  the 
remains  of  the  last  Nonjuring  bishop  in  England,  under  a 
gravestone  bearing  the  following  inscription  : 

UNDERNEATH 
LIE    THE   REMAINS   OP 

WILLIAM  CAETWEIGHT, 

APOTHECARY 

WHO    DIED    14TH    OCT.    1799 

AGED    69. 

ALSO    THE    REMAINS    OF 

SAEAH   SOPHIA   CAETWEIGHT, 

WIFE    OF    THE    ABOVE 

WHO    DIED    6TH    OCT.    1801 

AGED    70. 

1  See  '  Bishop  Seabury  and  the  Nonjuring  Bishops.'  From  a  Letter  in 
the  Colonial  Church  Chronicle,  for  December  1849.  The  letter  was  procured 
through  the  kindness  of  the  Rev.  H.  H.  Norris. 


372  THE  NONJURORS 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  is  a  slight  inaccuracy  in 
this  statement.  Cartwright  was  not  « the  last  Nonjuring 
bishop  in  England  ;  '  there  were  two  after  him. 

I  am  not  aware  that  Bishop  Cartwright  published  any- 
thing original  except  a  lengthy  Preface,  dated  '  Shrews- 
bury, 1797/  to  a  reprint  of  his  father-in-law's  'Litany  for 
the  Use  of  those  that  Mourn,'  &c,  of  1746,  from  which 
we  gather  that  he  still  adhered  in  toto  to  the  theological 
views  of  Dr.  Deacon. 

There  is  also  another  Nonjuring  Prayer  Book  con- 
nected with  the  name  of  Bishop  Cartwright,  the  existence 
of  which  has  quite  lately  been  discovered  by  Mr.  Henry 
Jenner.  It  is  entitled  'The  Divine  Office,  containing 
Devotions  for  the  Canonical  Hours  of  Prayer  at  Lauds, 
Tierce,  Sext,  None  and  Compline,  to  be  used  by  all  religious 
Societies  where  is  a  Priest  and  in  the  Houses  of  all  the 
Clergy.  Part  I.  Printed  in  the  year  1761.'  One  of  the 
two  copies  in  the  British  Museum  has  a  number  of  MS. 
notes  in  a  handwriting  which  has  been  clearly  identified 
as  Bishop  Cartwright's,  and  the  name  of  '  W.  G.  Rowland, 
1800,'  who,  as  has  been  seen,  was  his  parish  priest.  These 
notes  draw  a  distinction  between  this  and  '  The  Public 
Office  Book,'  that  is  Deacon's  '  Compleat  Collection,'  and 
arc  written  with  an  air  of  authority  which  Cartwright's 
position  as  a  quasi -metropolitan  of  the  little  community 
clearly  justifies.  But,  as  Mr.  Jenner  points  out,  the  most 
interesting  point  is  that  the  title  suggests  the  foundation, 
or  at  any  rate  the  conception,  of  religious  societies  among 
the  Nonjurors,  not  of  the  type  of  the  '  Religious  Societies 
which  had  once  been  so  useful,  still  less  of  the  type  of 
Wi  ley's  CJnited  Societies,'  but  rather  of  that  of  Little 
Gtidding.  Whether  any  such  'communities '  or '  societies ' 
were  i  rei  attempted  is  cot  known. 

The  la  it  two  bishops  of  this  line  were  Thomas  Garnet!. 


BISHOPS  GAENETT  AND  BOOTH  373 

consecrated  by  Bishop  Cartwright  in  1795,  and  Charles 
Booth,  consecrated  probably  by  Bishop  Garnett  some 
time  later.  Garnett  is  said  to  have  been  '  keeper  of  the 
communion-plate  '  ;  and  his  name  occurs  again  in  an  in- 
teresting note  in  the  '  Manchester  Guide ' :  '  The  present 
bishop  is  a  Mr.  Thos.  Garnet,  who,  it  seems,  does  not 
exercise  the  Episcopal  office,  and  the  congregation,  now 
reduced  to  about  thirty  persons,  is  under  the  guidance  of 
Mr.  Charles  Booth,  watchmaker,  in  Long  Millgate,  who 
in  his  own  house  performs  the  functions  of  a  priest.' l  It 
seems  reasonable  to  presume  that  this  Charles  Booth  was 
the  future  bishop.     He  died  in  Ireland  in  1805. 

One  curious  personage  belonging  to  this  line  of  Non- 
jurors deserves  notice. 

Thomas  Podmore  (1704-85)  was  one  of  those  men  who, 
without  any  advantages  of  education,  manage  by  the 
sheer  force  of  industry  and  intellect  to  attain  to  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  learning.  He  was  brought  up  as  a 
barber  and  peruke-maker  at  Manchester,  and  became  an 
early  member  of  Dr.  Deacon's  congregation  and  an  enthu- 
siastic convert  to  his  views,  both  theological  and  political. 
He  was  '  out  in  '45  '  in  the  Manchester  Kegiment,  and 
then  joined  Cartwright  at  Shrewsbury  and  became  master 
of  Millington's  School  in  that  town,  an  office  which  he  is 
said  to  have  held  for  '  nearly  forty  years.' 2  As  he  died  in 
1785,  this  shows  that  he  could  not  have  left  Manchester 
much  later  than  1745.  "When  he  received  deacon's  orders 
is  not  known,  but  he  certainly  did  receive  them,  probably 
from  Bishop  Deacon,  and  helped  Cartwright  in  his  minis- 
terial work  at  Shrewsbury,  having  previously  helped 
Deacon  at  Manchester.    He  was  buried,  by  his  own  desire, 

1  Aston's  Manchester  Guide,  p.  144,  note. 

2  A  full  account  of  Podmore  will  be  found  in  Byrorn's  Remains,  vol.  ii. 
part  ii.  He  is  also  noticed  in  Notes  and  Queries,  vol.  for  January- June,  1856 
and  in  Salopian  Shreds  and  Patches,  for  May  24, 1876,  and  August  17, 1879 


374  THE   NONJUKORS 

in  the  consecrated  ground  where  Cadogan  Chapel  once 
stood,  and  where  a  Hospital  for  twelve  decayed  House- 
keepers and  Charity  Schools,  which  still  exist,  were  built 
under  the  will,  dated  8  Feb.  1734  of  James  Millington, 
Draper  and  Nonjuror.1  His  tomb  on  the  terrace  at 
Millington  Hospital  bears  this  inscription  : 

M.   S. 

EEVD-  THOS.   PODMORE 

ECC.    ORTH.    BRIT.    DIAC. 

OB  :    10   APR.    1785   JET.    81 

MAY    HE    FIND    MERCY   OF   THE    LORD    IN    THAT    DAY. 

And  a  more  touching  elegy  was  found  among  Cartwright's 
papers  in  the  bishop's  own  handwriting : 

On  Sunday  evening  last  died  in  the  81  year  of  his  age,  the 
Rev.  Thomas  Podmore,  for  some  years  Master  of  Millington's 
Hospital  in  this  Town,  and  many  years  a  Deacon  of  the  Ancient 
Orthodox  British  Church,  of  whom  in  few  words  it  may  be 
gently  said,  '  He  was  a  pious  and  faithful,  and  a  peaceable, 
honest  man,  an  Israelite  indeed.' 

He  wrote  a  very  remarkable  work,  to  which,  after  the 
fashion  of  the  day,  he  gave  the  following  lengthy  title  : 

The  Layman's  Apology  for  returning  to  Primitive  Christianity. 
Shewing  from  the  Testimonies  of  Ancient,  and  the  Concessions 
of  Modem  Writers,  that  the  Greek,  Roman  and  English 
(Hunches,  as  well  as  the  Pretended  Churches  of  the  Anti- 
Episcopal  Reformers  have  each,  in  some  degree,  departed  from 
the  Doctrine  and  Practice  of  the  Catholic  Church  :  and  pointing 
out  a  Pure  Episcopal  Church  in  England  which  teaches  and 
practises  All  the  Ordinances  of  Christ  and  His  Church  in  their 
Evangelical  Perfection.  Written  in  the  year  1715  by  Tha 
Podmore,  a!  thai  time  Barber  and  Peruke  Maker  in  Manchester 
117471. 

bery  lions,  ol.  ix.  July  L898.    article  on  'The  Non- 

|  bj  ;i"  Hon.  Mrs.  Etalkeley  Owen,    also  farther  private  Information 

kindly  given  me  bj  If]  ,  Boll  i  li  j  Owen. 


THOMAS  PODMOEE  375 

It  fills  two  hundred  very  closely  printed  pages,  and  its 
curious  conclusion  is  worth  quoting  as  a  compendium  of 
the  tenets  held  by  this  latest  development  of  the  Non- 
juring  separation : 

And  now,  having  found  that  the  Greek  Church  is  chargeable 
with  having  departed  from  the  Doctrine  and  Practice  of  the 
Catholick  Church  in  (1)  Transubstantiation  and  Adoration  of 
the  Host,  (2)  Praying  to  Saints  and  Angels,  (3)  Worship  of 
Images,  and  imposing  these  on  all  who  communicate  with  her  ; 
the  Eoman  Church  the  same,  and  further  (4)  Maintaining  and 
imposing  the  doctrine  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome's  supremacy, 
(5)  Purgatory  Fire  between  death  and  resurrection  without  its 
sequence,  (6)  taking  the  Apocrypha  into  the  Canon  of  Scripture, 
(7)  withholding  the  Eucharistic  Cup,  or  Communion  in  one 
kind,  (8)  rejecting  Infant  Communion,  (9)  Making  Consecration 
to  consist  in  the  words  of  Institution,  (10)  imposing  the 
Filioque,  (11)  not  using  Trine  Immersion  in  Baptism,  (12)  dis- 
regarding the  ancient  practice  of  praying  standing  on  Sundays 
between  Easter  and  Whitsuntide,  (13)  and  the  Apostolical  pre- 
cept of  abstaining  from  eating  blood,  (14)  and  the  Saturday 
Festival,  and  (15)  the  Saturday  Fast ;  the  Church  of  England 
also  chargeable  with  the  last  eight  deviations,  and  also  (9)  main- 
taining the  King's  Ecclesiastical  Supremacy,  (10)  rejecting  the 
Mixture,  (11)  denying  the  Eucharist  to  be  a  Sacrifice,  and 
therefore  wanting  Oblatory  Prayer,  and  (12)  Invocatory  Prayer, 
(13)  No  Prayer  for  the  Faithful  Departed,  (14)  No  Chrism  in 
Confirmation,  (15)  No  Unction  of  the  Sick.  And  the  Anti- 
Episcopalians,  worse  than  any,  having  rejected  almost  every, 
thing,  especially  Episcopacy  without  which  there  can  be  no 
church. 

He  then  points  out  that  '  there  is  a  Church  which 
hath  all  these  things,'  and  refers  the  reader  to  Deacon's 
works.  '  And,'  he  concludes,  '  if  the  pious  Reader  would 
know  where  such  a  pure,  perfect  Church  as  I  am  recom- 
mending is  to  be  found,  I  will  tell  him  in  one  word,  at 
Manchester.' 

Bishop  Cartwright's  was  the  last  Nonjuring  congre- 
gation   of   which    we   have  any   authentic    record;    the 


376  THE  NONJURORS 

Nonjurors,  therefore,  may  be  said  to  have  become  extinct, 
or  rather  to  have  been  reabsorbed  coterminously  with 
the  eighteenth  century.  The  two  bishops  who  survived 
Cart wright  are  shadows,  and  the  rumours  of  Nonjuring 
congregations  lingering  on  in  the  West  of  England  as  late 
as  1815  are  very  vague.  There  were  still,  no  doubt, 
individuals  who  sympathised  with  Nonjuring  principles  ; 
but  they  showed  their  sympathy,  not  by  forming  congre- 
gations of  their  own,  nor  by  standing  aloof  from  public 
worship  in  the  parish  churches,  but  by  the  simple  device 
of  only  using  Prayer  Books  which  were  printed  before 
the  Kevolution — a  plan  which  was  adopted  very  early  in 
the  Nonjuring  controversy. 


377 


CHAPTEB    IX 

THE   NONJURORS   AND   GENERAL   LITERATURE 

It  has  been  thought,  on  the  whole,  desirable  to  devote  a 
separate  chapter  to  the  general  literary  work  of  the  Non- 
jurors, apart  from  the  sketches  of  the  individuals  who 
produced  it,  and  apart  from  that  special  literary  work 
which  their  Nonjuring  position  and  their  internal  disputes 
entailed  upon  them.  There  is,  of  course,  this  obvious 
objection  to  the  plan — that  it  is  a  putting  asunder  of 
what  the  fitness  of  things  would  naturally  join  together. 
But  having  frankly  admitted  the  awkwardness  of  the 
arrangement,  I  adopt  it  for  two  reasons  which  more  than 
counterbalance  the  advantages  of  the  more  natural  plan 
of  treating  the  writers  and  all  their  writings,  whether  they 
bear  on  the  Nonjuring  question  or  not,  together.  These 
reasons  are  :  (1)  The  great  importance  of  emphasising 
the  fact  that  the  Nonjurors  could  look  beyond  their  own 
little  community,  and  take  an  intelligent  interest  not  only 
in  Christianity  generally,  but  in  other  subjects  which 
engage  the  attention  of  cultivated  men ;  (2)  the  desirable- 
ness of  not  drawing  away  the  reader's  attention  from  the 
real  points  at  issue  in  the  Nonjuring  question,  as  might 
have  been  the  case  if,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  space 
had  been  devoted  to  work  done  by  Nonjurors,  not  qua 
Nonjurors,  but  qua  Christians  and  qua  men  of  culture. 

The  dislocation  will  not,  perhaps,  be  quite  so  glaring 
if  the  works  treated  of  in  this  chapter  be  grouped,  not 
according  to  their  writers,  but  according  to  their  subject- 


378  THE  NONJURORS 

matter.  On  this  principle  they  may  be  divided  into  five 
classes — viz.  (1)  Practical  and  Devotional  Works  ;  (2)  Con- 
troversial Works  ;  (3)  Historical  and  Biographical  Works  ; 
(4)  Poetical  Works  ;  (5)  Miscellaneous  Works. 

(1)  Practical  and  Devotional  Works. 

The  sanctity  of  an  oath,  as  a  religious  act,  was  the 
first  guiding  principle  of  the  Nonjurors;  the  practical 
duty  of  patient  submission  to  the  powers  ordained  of 
God  their  second  ;  the  spiritual  authority  and  indepen- 
dence of  the  Church  as  a  spiritual  society  their  third. 
These  three  principles  are,  in  the  last  resort,  not  political, 
nor  ecclesiastical,  but  simply  religious.  One  would 
naturally,  therefore,  expect  that  '  works  of  piety '  (a  good 
old  phrase  now  almost  gone  out  of  fashion)  would  take  a 
prominent  place  among  the  compositions  of  Nonjurors. 
And  so  we  find  they  do.  Their  practical  and  devotional 
works  have  lived,  while  many  of  their  other  works  have 
died.  Some  who  know  little  and  care  less  about  the 
whole  Nonjuring  question,  and  others  who  regard  it  as 
an  entirely  obsolete  phase  of  thought,  still  know  and 
admire  the  'works  of  piety'  written  by  Thomas  Ken, 
John  Kettlewell,  Robert  Nelson,  Nathanael  Spinckes,  and 
William  Law. 

Bishop  Ken's  practical  and  devotional  compositions 
in  prose  were  all  connected  with  his  parochial  or  diocesan 
work,  and  were  therefore  written  before  he  became  a 
Nonjuror;  but  after  he  became  one  he  stamped  them  all 
with  his  approval  by  putting  forth  later  editions.  They 
arc  few  in  number  and  Blight  in  bulk,  and  one  cannot 
help  regretting  that  they  wen-  not  more  numerous  and 
more  bulky,  for  they  are  gems.  In  1674,  when  he  was 
working  as  a  pariah  priesl  at  Winchester,  he  published 
Ins    'Manual    for   Winchester    Soholara,'   to  which    an 


DEVOTIONAL  WOEKS— KEN'S  379 

adventitious  interest  is  attached,  because  in  a  later  edition 
of  it  (1695)  first  appeared  the  three  immortal  hymns 
which  come  under  our  fourth  class.  In  1685,  being 
anxious  for  the  good  of  the  people  of  his  new  diocese,  he 
published  expressly  for  their  instruction  '  The  Practice 
of  Divine  Love,  being  an  Exposition  of  the  Church 
Catechism.'  '  The  characteristic  feature,'  writes  Dean 
Plumptre,  'of  the  "Exposition"  throughout  is,  that  the 
Catechism  is  turned  in  all  its  parts  into  a  Manual  of 
Devotion.' 1  It  might  seem  as  if  it  would  require  some 
ingenuity  to  do  this,  and  that  the  result  would  be  some- 
what far-fetched ;  but  Ken  was  so  spiritually  minded  a 
man  that  it  all  appears  to  come  quite  naturally  from  him. 
In  the  same  year  (1685),  and  for  the  same  reason,  appeared 
his  '  Directions  for  Prayer  for  the  Diocese  of  Bath  and 
Wells,'  of  which  Dean  Plumptre  says  :  '  It  can  hardly  be 
doubted  that  it  was  the  direct  outcome  of  Ken's  ministra- 
tions to  the  prisoners  whom  he  visited  at  Wells,  and  in 
whom  he  had  found  a  "  lamentable  ignorance  and  forget- 
fulness  of  God."'2  And  so  for  this  class  he  composed 
the  simplest  of  simple  directions  and  prayers ;  but  for 
family  prayers  he  commended  those  of  the  Prayer  Book 
1  as  being  most  familiar  and  of  greatest  authority  withal.' 
A  very  different  class  of  people,  who  frequented  the  other 
city  from  which  Bishop  Ken  received  his  title,  also  claimed 
his  sympathy.  From  the  prisoners  at  Wells  to  the 
health-seekers  and  pleasure-seekers  at  Bath  seems  a  far 
cry,  but  the  good  bishop  had  a  heart  for  both,  and  so  there 
immediately  followed  another  manual  from  '  Thomas, 
unworthy  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  to  all  Persons  who 
come  to  the  Baths  for  cure,  wishing  for  them  from  God 
the  Blessings  of  this  life  and  the  next.'     It  is  entitled 

1  Life  of  Bisliop  Ken,  i.  231. 

2  Ibid.i.  237. 


3so  THE  NONJURORS 

4  Prayers  for  the  use  of  all  resorting  to  the  Baths  at  Bath.' 
There  are  several  other  works  of  a  devotional  character 
which  are  attributed  to  Ken,  some  on  strong  grounds; 
but  the  limits  of  this  work  allow  me  to  specify  only  those 
which  are  undoubtedly  his. 

John  Kettlewell  was  a  more  voluminous  writer  on 
practical  and  devotional  subjects  than  Bishop  Ken.  Like 
Ken,  he  wrote  in  the  first  instance  for  the  benefit  of  his 
own  flock ;  but,  unlike  Ken,  he  did  not  cease  to  write  for 
them  after  he  became  a  Nonjuror,  because  he  considered 
that  he  was  still  their  shepherd  cle  jure,  though  not  de 
facto.  His  first  work  which  properly  comes  under  the 
present  head  was  '  The  Measures  of  Christian  Obedience,' 
published  in  1681,  and  this  was  followed  by  '  An  Help 
and  Exhortation  to  Worthy  Communicating,'  in  1683. 
The  former  anticipates  some  of  the  reasons  which  led 
Kettlewell  eight  years  later  to  become  a  Nonjuror ;  but 
it  is  essentially  a  practical,  not  a  controversial,  work ;  as 
also  is  the  second,  which  is  simply  a  summary  of  the 
preparation    sermons    which    he   was    in    the   habit   of 

I  ling  at  Coleshill  before  the  Sundays  on  which  he 
administered  the  Holy  Communion.  Both  were  popular, 
and  passed  through  several  editions,  but  not  so  popular 
as  the  next,  which  appeared,  in  February  1687-8,  under 
the  title  of  '  The  Practical  Believer ;  or  the  Articles  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed  drawn  out  to  form  a  true  Christian's 
Eeart  and  Practice,'  which  was  a  sort  of  supplement  to 
I  Measures  of  Christian  Obedience,'  but  more  elabo- 
rate, Almost  everything  that  Kettlewell  wrote  was,  more 
.  of  s  practical  and  devotional  character,  and  it  is 
much  more  difficult  to  disentangle  the  Nonjuring  from 
the  practical  element  in  his  oase  than  in  that  of  Bishop 
Ken;  because  many  of  his  works  were  written  when  he 

actually  a  Nonjuror,  while  oone  oi  Ken's  were,  and 


DEVOTIONAL  WOEKS— KETTLEWELL'S       381 

also  because  Kettlewell  took  more  distinctly  and  less 
hesitatingly  than  Ken  did  the  Nonjuring  position.  But 
most  of  these  semi-controversial,  semi-devotional  works 
have  already  been  noticed  in  the  preceding  pages,  so  I 
pass  on  to  one  which  is  exclusively  devotional,  and  might 
have  been  written  for  any  Churchman,  Juring  or  Non- 
juring.  It  is  entitled  '  A  Companion  for  the  Penitent  and 
for  Persons  troubled  in  Mind,'  and  was  first  published  in 
1694;  it  was  addressed  to  his  late  parishioners,  and 
copies  of  it  were  sent  by  the  writer  for  distribution  at 
Coleshill.  But  one  cannot  but  feel  that  this,  too,  was 
intended  to  be  a  supplement  to  a  work  published  in 
the  same  year,  or  the  year  before,  with  a  similar  title, 
'  A  Companion  for  the  Persecuted,  or  an  Office  for  those 
who  suffer  for  Kighteousness,'  which  is  a  distinctly  Non- 
juring  work.  There  is  a  touching  interest  about  his  next 
work,  '  Death  made  comfortable,  or  the  way  to  die  well ' 
(1695),  because  it  was  written  by  one  who  was  virtually 
a  dying  man.  Several  other  works  of  the  same  type 
were  published  after  the  saintly  writer's  death  under  the 
auspices  of  his  friend,  Kobert  Nelson,  but  these  hardly 
call  for  special  notice  ;  and  finally,  in  1749,  a  judicious 
selection  from  his  works  was  published  as  a  manual  of 
devotion  under  the  title  of  '  The  True  Church  of  England 
Man's  Companion.' 

Kobert  Nelson's  practical  writings  follow  by  a  natural 
sequence  those  of  his  friend  Kettlewell,  for  it  was 
Kettlewell  who  stimulated  him  'especially  to  write  for 
the  honour  of  religion,  which  he  thought  might  do  much 
more  good  as  coming  from  a  lay  gentleman  than  it  would 
from  a  professed  clergyman.' 1  Nelson's  works  were  a 
reflex  of  his  life  ;  as  he  lived,  so  he  wrote,  simply  to  do 
good.  The  first  was  '  The  Practice  of  True  Devotion,  in 
1  Lee's  '  Life  of  Kettlewell,'  prefixed  to  Compleat  Works,  i.  170. 


382  THE  NONJURORS 

Relation  to  the  End  as  well  as  the  Means  of  Religion, 
with  an  Office  for  the  Holy  Communion,'  which  was 
published  anonymously  in  1698.  It  was  written,  as  he 
himself  tells  us,  because  he  thought  that  '  the  prevalence 
of  relifnous  controversies  drew  men  away  from  the  solid 
and  substantial  part  of  religion,  the  spirit  and  life  of 
devotion,'  and  he  wished  to  lead  them  back  to  it.  Next 
came  *  An  Earnest  Exhortation  to  Householders  to  set 
up  the  Worship  of  God  in  their  Families,'  also  published 
anonymously,  1702.  This  was  perhaps  seasonable  for  the 
same  reason  as  it  would  be  now,  because  the  great  increase 
in  the  number  of  week-day  services,  which  was  a  marked 
feature  of  that  day,  as  it  is  of  the  present,  has  a  tendency 
to  make  people  put  family  prayer  in  the  background. 
Then  came  by  far  the  most  popular  of  all  his  works,  one 
which  to  this  day  has  not  been  superseded ;  at  least  I  know 
no  other  work  which  treats  of  the  same  subject  in  the  same 
compass  and  in  the  same  way.  Its  full  title  is  •  A  Com- 
panion for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Church  of 
England,  with  Collects  and  Prayers  for  each  Solemnity.' 
It  was  not  published  until  1704,  but  it  had  been  projected, 
and,  indeed,  commenced,  at  least  ten  years  before  ;  for 
Kettlewell,  who  died  in  1695,  was  not  only  the  original 
suggester  of  it,  but  helped  in  the  beginning  of  its  com- 
position. Francis  Brokesby  also,  whom  Nelson  often  met 
At  Shottesbrooke,  is  said  to  have  had  a  hand  in  the  work ; 
but  Nelson  derived  his  most  valuable  assistance  from  his 
friend,  Dr.  William  Cave;  and,  as  Mr.  Secretan  points 
out,1  &  comparison  between  it  and  Cave's  'Lives  of  the 
\|.  .  il<  s  and  Evangelists '  shows  many  verbal  agreements 
between  the  two  works.  Honour  to  whom  honour  is 
due  ;  Nelson's  '  Festivals  and  Fasts  '  (to  give  it  its  familiar 
title)  could  never  have  been  what  it  is  without  Dr.  Cave's 
1  I  life  of  the  pious  Robert   '.  p.  164, 


DEVOTIONAL  WOEKS— NELSON'S  383 

help,  and  its  reader  may  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing 
that  he  is  reading  a  book  which  reflects  the  learning  of 
one  of  the  most  learned  theologians  of  the  English 
Church.  It  is  surely  unnecessary  to  describe  this  really 
classical  work  ;  if  any  Churchman  is  not  already  familiar 
with  it,  the  sooner  he  makes  himself  so  the  better.  It 
had  an  unexampled  career  of  prosperity  for  so  grave  a 
work.  Ten  thousand  copies  were  sold  within  five  years 
of  its  publication  ;  it  had  reached  a  thirty-sixth  edition  in 
1826,  and  it  has  been  reprinted  since. 

In  the  same  year,  1704,  appeared  another  work  in  the 
catechetical  form,  like  the  '  Festivals  and  Fasts,'  which, 
though  anonymous,  was  certainly  Nelson's,  *  The  Whole 
Duty  of  a  Christian,  by  way  of  Question  and  Answer, 
exactly  pursuant  to  the  Method  of  the  Whole  Duty  of 
Man,  for  the  use  of  Charity  Schools  about  London ; '  and 
in  1706  yet  another,  '  Instructions  for  those  that  come  to 
be  Confirmed,  by  way  of  Question  and  Answer ' ;  but 
these  have  not  lived,  as  their  predecessor  has  done.  The 
last-named  was  afterwards  prefixed  to  another  practical 
work  by  Nelson,  '  The  Great  Duty  of  frequenting  the 
Christian  Sacrifice,'  published  in  1707.  This,  viewed  in 
one  light,  would  belong  to  our  next  section,  for  its  very 
title  shows  that  it  committed  the  writer  to  one  side  on  a 
subject  which  was  being  hotly  controverted  at  the  time — 
viz.  whether  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  a  Sacrifice  as  well 
as  a  Sacrament.  But  Nelson,  though  very  reasonable 
and  moderate,  was  not  colourless,  and  was  not  at  all 
afraid  to  show  his  colours  ;  he  strongly  contended  for  the 
sacrificial  character  of  the  Eucharist,  being  well  backed 
up  by  his  friend  Hickes  and  by  Johnson  of  Cranbrook, 
author  of  '  The  Unbloody  Sacrifice,'  with  whom,  though  a 
stranger,  he  interchanged  some  interesting  letters  on  the 
subject.     But   the   book  was   devotional   far  more  than 


384  THE  NONJURORS 

controversial,  and  therefore  belongs  to  the  present  head. 
The  next  work  touched  no  burning  question,  except  the 
question  of  selfishness.  It  was  a  most  stirring  appeal, 
entitled  '  An  Address  to  Persons  of  Quality  and  Estate,' 
pointing  out  to  them  the  many  ways  and  means  of  doing 
good.  It  may  be  regarded  as  Nelson's  dying  protest 
against  the  luxury  and  selfishness  of  the  age,  for  it 
appeared  in  1715,  and  in  that  year  the  author  died. 

Nelson  was  a  man  of  many  friends,  but  there  were 
none  for  whom  he  had  a  greater  respect  than  Nathanacl 
Spinckes,  who,  like  himself,  was  a  devotional  writer, 
though,  considering  the  saintliness  and  ability  of  the  man, 
not  nearly  to  the  extent  that  one  could  have  wished.  We 
could  well  have  spared  some  of  his  tracts  on  the  •  Usages  ' 
controversy  for  the  sake  of  more  writings  of  a  devotional 
type.  The  first  of  this  kind  was  entitled  '  The  Sick  Man 
Visited  and  furnished  with  Instructions,  Meditations, 
and  Prayers,  by  Nath.  Spinckes,'  which  was  first  pub- 
lished in  1712,  and  reached  a  fourth  edition  in  1731.  It 
is,  in  the  first  instance,  addressed  more  ad  clerum  than 
ad  populum.  It  is  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue,  and  describes 
six  visits  from  the  minister  to  his  sick  parishioner,  fol- 
lowed by  some  meditations  and  no  less  than  sixty-three 
prayers,  '  proper  for  the  use  of  the  sick  on  different  occa- 
sions ' ;  it  is  written  in  a  very  pleasant  and  homely  style, 
and  is  well  adapted  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
intended.  Still  more  popular  was  a  compilation  com- 
monly called  '  Spinckes's  Devotions,'  but  properly  '  The 
True  Church  of  England  Man's  Companion  to  the  Closet, 
with  a  Preface  by  N.  Spinckes '  (1721).  The  prayers  and 
mm  'Illations  were  collected,  probably  by  Spinckes  himself, 
from  the  writings  of  Land,  Andrewes,  Ken,  Hiokes, 
Kettlewell,  Bpinokes,  and  others;  and  the  collection 
became  bo  popular  that  it  reached  a  fifteenth  edition  in 


PEACTICAL  WOEKS— SPINCKES'S  AND  LAW'S      385 

1772.  It  was  republished  with  an  Introduction  by  the 
Rev.  F.  Paget  in  1841,  and  has  probably  been  used  by 
many  who  were  influenced  by  the  Oxford  Movement. 
'  Spinckes's  Devotions '  is  a  book  frequently  mentioned  in 
eighteenth  century  literature. 

William  Laic  was,  like  Ken  and  Kettle  well,  so  satu- 
rated with  the  spirit  of  piety  that,  in  one  sense,  all  his 
works  are  devotional,  while,  in  another  sense,  none  of 
them  is ;  that  is,  none  of  them  can  be  exactly  used  as 
a  manual  of  devotion.  Practical,  however,  they  are,  and 
here  it  might  be  difficult  to  know  what  to  include  in  the 
present  section ;  but,  happily,  we  are  guided  by  Mr.  Law 
himself,  who  calls  the  '  Christian  Perfection '  and  the 
*  Serious  Call '  '  my  two  practical  treatises.' 

In  fact,  the  proper  title  of  the  first  is  '  A  Practical 
Treatise  upon  Christian  Perfection.'  This  was  published 
in  1726,  and  has  passed  through  innumerable  editions. 
It  is  a  wonderfully  powerful  book,  and  had  it  not  been 
eclipsed  by  the  still  more  powerful  one  which  quickly 
followed  would  have  been  even  more  highly  appreciated 
than  it  has  been.  Its  drawback,  perhaps,  is  that  it  sets 
an  impossibly  high  standard ;  it  is  '  practical,'  but  hardly 
'  practicable.'  It  should,  however,  be  read  in  the  light  of 
the  answer  which  Law  himself  gave  to  John  Wesley  when 
the  latter,  with  his  strong  common  sense,  demurred  to 
Law's  view  of  Christian  duty  as  too  elevated  to  be  attain- 
able :  '  We  shall  do  well  to  aim  at  the  highest  degree  of 
perfection,  if  we  may  thereby,  at  least,  attain  to  medio- 
crity.' It  should  also  be  remembered  that,  when  it 
appeared,  religion  in  England  was  about  at  its  nadir,  and 
this  may  to  some  extent  account  for  the  rather  gloomy 
view  of  life  which  Law  takes ;  but  the  gloom  is  often 
lighted  up  by  flashes  of  that  racy,  though  somewhat 
grim,  humour  which  is  a  striking  characteristic  of  this 

c  c 


386  THE  NONJURORS 

remarkable  man.  In  the  '  Christian  Perfection  '  he 
begins  the  plan,  which  he  elaborated  more  carefully 
and  in  greater  fulness  in  the  '  Serious  Call,'  of  illus- 
trating his  meaning  by  imaginary  characters.  Philo, 
Patronus,  Eusebius,  Lucia,  Publius,  Siccus,  are  brilliant 
sketches — all  the  more  brilliant  from  the  sombreness  of 
their  setting. 

In  1728  appeared  '  A  Serious  Call  to  a  Devout  and 
Holy  Life,  adapted  to  the  State  and  Condition  of  all 
Orders  of  Christians,'  the  work  by  which,  of  all  others, 
Law's  name  is  known.  It  would  have  been  well  if 
objectors  had  attended  more  to  the  title  of  the  book.  It 
is  not,  and  does  not  profess  to  be,  a  devotional  book,  still 
less  a  complete  body  of  divinity.  It  is  simply,  as  its  name 
indicates,  a  '  Call.'  Eegarded  in  this  its  proper  light,  it 
must  be  admitted  to  have  been  wonderfully  effective. 
The  '  Call '  reached  the  ears  of  thousands,  and  appealed 
to  them  not  in  vain.  It  is  less  depressing,  more  brilliant, 
and  more  persuasive  than  its  predecessor ;  but  both  are  in 
their  way  unique,  and  produced  an  impression  which  no 
other  books  in  the  eighteenth  century  did.  The  odd  part 
of  it  is  that  while  they  roused  men's  spiritual  conscious- 
ness, and  made  them  no  longer  content  to  lead  a  selfish, 
worldly  life,  they  led  them  in  a  direction  in  which  Law 
was  by  no  means  prepared  to  follow.  It  should  never  be 
forgotten  that  the  '  Christian  Perfection  '  and  the  '  Serious 
Call '  were  written  by  a  Nonjuror — that  is,  not  only  by 
one  whose  conscience  forbade  him  to  swear  allegiance  to 
the  House  of  Hanover,  but  by  one  who  held  the  same 
Church  principles,  and  was  of  the  same  tone  of  mind  as 
the  Nonjurors.  In  one  sense,  both  the  writer  and  his 
books  were  the  exact  antipodes  of  the  Puritans,  and  yet 
they  wen:  the  primum  mobile  of  what  has  been,  not  very 
accurately,  termed  modern  Puritanism.     There   was   no 


PKACTICAL  WOEKS— LAW'S  387 

inconsistency  whatever  in  Law's  position ;  a  man  might 
perfectly  well  combine  the  Church  principles,  say,  of  Laud 
with  the  puritanical  severity  of  Laud's  arch-enemy, 
Prynne;  but  it  had  not  been  a  usual  combination,  and 
the  general  public,  which  is  not  given  to  making  nice 
distinctions,  identified  Law  with  a  party  to  which  in 
reality  he  never  belonged.  '  William  Law  begat  Method- 
ism '  was  Warburton's  dictum,  and  it  is  a  dictum  which 
cannot  be  gainsaid.  'I  prophesied,'  writes  a  sapient 
gentleman,  Dr.  Trapp,  '  that  the  two  books  would  do  harm, 
and  so  it  happened,  for  shortly  afterwards  up  sprung  the 
Methodists.'  •  One  point  in  common  with  the  Methodists 
Law  certainly  had :  he  was  '  an  enthusiast,'  and  to  call 
a  man  an  enthusiast  in  the  eighteenth  century  was  like 
calling  him  a  leper — a  man  to  be  carefully  shunned.  But 
in  other  respects  Law  was  never  a  Methodist,  not  even 
in  the  wide  and  vague  sense  in  which  the  word  was  used 
in  the  eighteenth  century.  He  was  always  a  High 
Churchman,  tinged  in  his  later  years  with  a  vein  of 
mysticism  which  estranged  him  still  farther  from  Me- 
thodism. Through  no  fault  of  his  own,  he  was  placed  in 
a  somewhat  false  position  by  his  two  practical  treatises. 
He  was  judged  by  one  standard,  while  he  himself  took 
another.  John  Wesley,  Charles  Wesley,  George  White- 
field,  Henry  Venn,  Thomas  Scott — in  short,  almost  all 
the  Evangelical  leaders  express  their  obligations  to  the 
two  books  ;  but  they  were  never  really  in  sympathy  with 
the  author.  They  appreciated  and  admired  his  piety,  his 
earnestness,  and  his  intellectual  power;  but  they  com- 
plained, and  from  their  point  of  view  not  without  reason, 
that  there  was  too  little  of  the  Gospel  in  the  books. 
Law  took  no  notice  of  the  complaints  ;   he  came  down 

1  Dr.  Trapp's  Discourse  on  the  Nature,  Folly,  Sin,  and  Danger  of  being 
Righteous  Overmuch. 

c  c  2 


388  THE  NONJURORS 

like  a  sledge-hammer  upon  Deists,  Latitudinarians,  and 
worldlings  ;  but  against  men  whom  he  believed  to  be 
earnest  Christians  he  never  lifted  up  his  hand.  But 
Christians  of  the  type  of  Bishop  Wilson  and  Bishop 
Home — that  is,  the  general  body  of  consistent  English 
Churchmen — were  those  who  really  appreciated,  heart  and 
soul,  the  '  Christian  Perfection '  and  the  '  Serious  Call.' 

One  of  the  chief  among  their  merits  was  that  they 
tended  to  dispel  the  mischievous  but  very  prevalent 
notion  that  piety  was  generally  accompanied  by  intel- 
lectual weakness.  We  see  traces  of  this  even  in  the 
great  and  good  Dr.  Johnson. 

I  became  [he  says]  a  sort  of  lax  talker  against  religion,  for 
I  did  not  much  think  against  it ;  and  this  lasted  till  I  went  to 
Oxford,  when  I  took  up  Law's  '  Serious  Call  to  a  Holy  Life,' 
expecting  to  find  it  a  dull  book,  as  such  books  generally  are. 
But  I  found  Law  quite  an  over-match  for  me ;  and  this  whs 
the  first  occasion  of  my  thinking  in  earnest  of  religion,  after 
I  became  capable  of  rational  inquiry.1 

In  the  same  spirit  the  first  Lord  Lyttelton,  the  poet 
and  historian,  took  up  Law's  '  Serious  Call'  at  a  friend's 
house,  and,  having  been  so  fascinated  that  he  could  not 
go  to  rest  until  he  had  finished  it,  expressed  himself  as 
'  not  a  little  astonished  to  find  that  one  of  the  finest 
books  that  ever  were  written  had  been  penned  by  a 
crack-brained  enthusiast.'2  Gibbon,  the  historian,  was 
perhaps  predisposed  to  regard  with  a  favourable  eye  the 
work  of  a  man  who  had  been  his  father's  tutor,  the 
honomvd  inmate  of  his  grandfather's  house,  and  'had  hit 
in  the  Gibbon  family  the  reputation  of  a  worthy  and 
pious  man,  who  believed  all  that  he  professed,  and 
practised   all   that    he    enjoined.'3     Still,   there  is  a  ring 

1  l;..  v..  li\.  /,;/,■  of  Johnson,  vol.  i.  oh.  i. 

1  Byrom'i  tUmaina  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  p.  884. 

5  MmoirofMyLiftond  Writing*  CHbbon'i  'Mifloelloneoua  Works,*  1 14. 


PEACTICAL  WOEKS — LAW'S  389 

of  sincere  and  honest  admiration  in  the  tone  in  which  he 
writes  of  the  '  Serious  Call,'  for  which  family  partiality  is 
not  sufficient  to  account : 

Mr.  Law's  mastevwork,  the  '  Serious  Call,'  is  still  read  as  a 
popular  and  powerful  book  of  devotion.  His  precepts  are  rigid  ; 
but  they  are  founded  on  the  Gospel.  His  satire  is  sharp ;  but 
it  is  drawn  from  the  knowledge  of  human  life,  and  many  of  his 
portraits  are  not  unworthy  of  the  pen  of  La  Bruyere.  If  he 
finds  a  spark  of  piety  in  his  reader's  mind,  he  will  soon  kindle 
it  to  a  flame ;  and  a  philosopher  must  allow  that  he  exposes, 
with  equal  severity  and  truth,  the  strange  contradiction  between 
the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Christian  world.1 

And,  to  come  to  our  own  day,  one  of  the  ablest  living 
critics,  though  he  differs  very  widely  from  Law's  views, 
evidently  admires  and  appreciates  the  '  Serious  Call,' 
'  a  hook  which  palpitates  throughout  with  the  deepest 
emotions  of  its  author.' 2 

It  is  with  some  misgiving  that  I  omit  to  notice  in 
this  connection  Law's  later,  mystical  works,  which  were 
intensely  '  devotional '  in  tone,  and  were  certainly  intended 
to  be  '  practical,'  though  that  is  the  last  epithet  that  some 
would  apply  to  them.  But  they  are  not  what  is  commonly 
understood  by  '  practical  and  devotional  works ; '  they 
teem  with  controversial  matter  in  every  page ;  people  who 
greatly  admired  the  two  books  which  we  have  been  con- 
sidering— Bishop  Home,  William  Jones,  John  Wesley, 
and  Henry  Venn  among  others — were  repelled  by  his 
later  writings ;  full  of  beautiful  and  suggestive  thoughts 
as  they  are,  the  consideration  of  them  here  might  intro- 
duce a  note  of  discord  into  a  subject  where  all  should 
be  harmony ;  so  it  will  be  better  to  accept  Law's  own 
description  of  the  '  Christian  Perfection '  and  the  '  Serious 

1  Memoir  of  My  Life  and  Writings,  p.  15. 

2  See  Sir  Leslie  Stephen's  English  Thought  in  the  Eighteenth  Century, 
ii.  395-6. 


390  THE  NONJURORS 

Call '  as  '  his  two  practical  treatises,' !  and  limit  ourselves 
to  these  two  for  the  present. 

Another  devotional  work  written  by  a  Nonjuror,  which 
had  a  considerable  reputation  in  its  day,  but  is  now,  like 
its  author,  forgotten,  was  Abednego  Seller's  'Devout 
Communicant,  assisted  with  Rules,  together  with  Medita- 
tions, Prayers  and  Anthems  for  every  Day  of  the  Holy 
Week.'  It  was  first  published  in  1G86,  and  became  so 
popular  that  it  reached  a  sixth  edition  in  1695.  Then  in 
1704  it  was  republished,  'with  many  alterations,  addi- 
tions, and  amendments,'  under  the  following  title  : 

The  good  man's  preparation  for  the  happy  receiving  of  the 
blessed  sacrament.  Together  with  an  account  of  the  Holy- 
Passion  Week ;  and  the  great  festival  of  Easter.  With  rules 
and  directions  how  to  fast  acceptably ;  and  how  to  communicate 
worthily.  To  which  are  annext,  particular  lessons,  prayers, 
meditations,  and  anthems,  for  the  several  days  of  those  times  of 
strict  mortification  and  holy  joy.     In  two  parts. 

Mr.  Seller  also  published  two  other  practical  works,  '  An 
Infallible  Way  to  Contentment  in  the  midst  of  Publick 
or  Personal  Calamities'  (1679  and  1688),  which  has  been 
reproduced  in  our  own  day  as  part  of  '  Companions  for  a 
Quiet  Hour,'  by  the  Eeligious  Tract  Society,  and  'An 
Exposition  of  the  Church  Catechism  from  our  Modern 
Authors  and  the  Holy  Scriptures  '  (1695). 

Besides  the  practical  and  devotional  works  actually 
written  by  Nonjurors,  there  were  others  which  they  either 
edited  afresh,  or  stamped  with  their  approval  by  writing  a 
I'n  fact;  or  Introduction  to  them.  Thus,  George  Hickes 
edited  in  1701  a  compilation  made  by  Susanna  Hopton, 
entitled  'Devotions  in  the  Antient  Way  of  Offices/ having 
i  it  and  prefixed  an  interesting  Preface.  This  book 
u  oft-  u  referred  to  in  Nonjuring  writings,  and  it  has  boon 

'  .s<<-  WUUam  Lew,  Nottfuror  and  Mystic,  p.  ho. 


CONTROVERSIAL  WORKS  391 

said  that  it  was  sometimes  used  as  part  of  the  Office  in 
Nonjuring  oratories,  but  the  evidence  for  this  is  not  strong. 
Nathanael  Spinckes  also  published  another  work  of  the 
same  lady  in  1717,  eight  years  after  her  death,  under  the 
title  of  '  A  Collection  of  Meditations  and  Devotions,  in 
Three  Parts.'  Henry  Dodwell  published  an  edition  of  the 
work  of  his  tutor,  Dr.  Stearne,  'De  Obstinatione ;  or, 
Concerning  Firmness  and  not  Sinking  under  Adversities,' 
and  also  an  edition,  with  a  Preface,  of  St.  Francis  de 
Sales's  '  Introduction  to  a  Devout  Life '  ;  and  Francis 
Lee,  an  edition  of  '  The  Christian  Exercise,'  by  Thomas  a 
Kempis. 

(2)  Controversial  Works. 

The  age  of  the  Nonjurors — that  is,  roughly  speaking, 
the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century — has  been  rightly 
described  as  '  an  age  of  a  thousand  controversies.'1  There 
was  the  Bangorian  controversy,  the  Convocation  con- 
troversy (nearly,  but  not  quite,  the  same  thing),  the 
Trinitarian  controversy,  the  Deistical  controversy,  the 
never-ending  Eoman  controversy,  the  controversy  with 
the  Quakers  at  the  beginning  of  the  period,  and  the 
controversy  with  the  Methodists  at  the  end,  and  num- 
berless minor  ones. 

In  these  controversies  the  Nonjurors  took  their  full 
share,  and  always  on  the  side  of  the  Church  of  England. 
From  their  writings  on  them  one  would  never  gather  that 
they  were  in  any  way  different — as,  indeed,  except  on 
their  own  peculiar  stumbling-block  they  were  not — from 
plain  English  Churchmen  who  took  the  recognised  formu- 
laries of  the  English  Church,  and  none  other,  as  their 
standard.     This  is  a  feature  in  their  history  which  has 

1  Bishop  Fitzgerald  in  Aids  to  Faith,  p.  48.     Essay  II.  '  Evidences  of 
Christianity.' 


392  THE  NONJURORS 

scarcely  been  brought  out  into  sufficient  prominence. 
Against  the  opponents,  not  only  of  Christianity  generally, 
but  of  the  Church  of  England  in  particular,  Leslie  and 
Ilickes,  Spinckes  and  Law,  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder 
with  Stillingfleet  and  Waterland,  Bull  and  Butler.  There 
is  assuredly  reason  in  the  sorrowful  reproach  of  one  of 
their  number  : 

It  seems,  Sir,  the  writing  of  Nonjurors  is  grievous  to  you. 
You  might  have  remembered  the  zeal  they  have  shown 
for  our  common  mother,  the  Church  of  England,  and  how  they 
have  been  her  constant  champions  against  her  adversaries  of 
all  sorts  since  the  Revolution.  .  .  .  They  have  all  along  shew'd 
this  zeal  and  affection  for  her,  tho'  since  the  Revolution  they 
have  neither  eat  of  her  bread,  nor  enjoy'd  her  possessions.1 

Let  us  begin  with  that  stout  champion  of  the  Christian 
faith,  Charles  Leslie.  Leslie's  deliberate  purpose  was 
to  furnish  English  Church  people  with  a  full  system  of 
defence  against  all  adversaries  ;  and  it  was  this  purpose, 
rather  than  his  love  of  fighting  (though  he  was  a  born 
fighter),  which  led  him  to  do  battle  with  Deists,  Jews, 
Socinians,  Quakers,  Romanists,  in  fact,  with  all  whom  he 
considered  enemies  of  Church  principles,  from  whatever 
quarter  they  might  come.  He  made  several  known  con- 
verts, and  many,  doubtless,  unknown,  by  his  writings,  but, 
as  his  biographer  truly  points  out:  'It  was  not  to  the 
Nonjurors  as  such,  in  opposition  to  the  Establishment, 
but  to  the  Church  of  England  that  he  reconciled  his 
conv<  rta  ;  not  attempting  to  impose  upon  them,  or  even 
recommend,  the  political  obligations  which  he  felt  bind- 
in-  on  his  own  conscience.'1  Family  circumstances  seem 
to  have  Led  him  first  bo  direcl  his  artillery  against  the 

1  .!  Seasonable  and  Modest  Apology  in  bene  ».  Dr.  George 

d  other  Honjurore,  in  a  Letter  to  T.  Wise,  />./>..  on  oooaaion  of  hie 
i         ton  at  Canterbury,  June  I,  L710. 

1  and  Writings,  by  B,  J.  Leslie,  p.  17*. 


CONTEOVEESIAL  WORKS— LESLIE'S  393 

Deists.  About  1686  Lady  Frances  Keightley,  sister  of  his 
ever-constant  friend  the  Earl  of  Clarendon,  became  an 
inmate  of  Charles  Leslie's  house.  She  had  become  un- 
settled in  her  faith  by  the  arguments  of  the  Deists,  and 
Leslie  tried  to  argue  with  her ;  but  '  I  found,'  he  says, 
'discoursing  with  her  had  but  little  effect,  for  in  that 
violent  discomposure  she  could  not  give  attention.  ...  I 
then  wrote  this  letter,  free  from  all  intricacies  and  suited 
to  her  capacity.  .  .  .  And  by  the  blessing  of  God  this  had 
the  desired  effect.' x  Though  really  addressed  to  a  lady, 
the  letter  appears  as  '  A  Letter  to  a  Gentleman  '  for 
obvious  reasons.  It  afterwards  appeared,  enlarged  and 
revised,  as  '  A  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the  Deists.' 
It  was  followed  by  '  A  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  the 
Jews,'  dated  very  appropriately  '  Good  Friday  1689.'  In 
1694  he  published  his  first  work  on  the  Socinian  con- 
troversy in  'A  Letter  to  a  Friend,'  which  was  followed  in 
1697  by  '  A  Second  Letter  to  a  Friend  '  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, and  in  1708  '  The  Socinian  Controversy  discussed 
in  Six  Dialogues,'  in  reply  to  Biddle's  'History  of  the 
Unitarians.'  The  Quakers  were  a  far  more  numerous  and 
thriving  sect  than  they  are  now,  and  Leslie  was  brought 
much  into  contact  with  them.  Partly  for  that  reason  and 
partly  because  their  disregard  of  the  Sacraments  would  be 
particularly  offensive  to  a  Churchman  of  advanced  views, 
he  wrote  more  numerous  and  lengthy  works  against 
them  than  against  any  others.  To  this  group  belong  his 
'  Snake  in  the  Grass,'  with  its  sequels  and  supplements, 
his  'Satan  Disrobed,'  &c,  'An  Answer  to  the  Switch,' 
and  '  A  Treatise  on  Water  Baptism.'  It  was  also  in 
connection  with  the  Quakers  that  he  wrote  against 
the  Muggletonians,  considering   the   two  sects  as  '  twin 

1  Vindication  of  '  Short  and  Easy  Method,'  quoted  in  Life,  by  E.  J. 
Leslie,  p.  22. 


394  THE  NONJURORS 

enthusiasts,  which,  though  like  Samson's  foxes  drawing 
two  ways,  their  tails  were  joined  with  firebrands  to  set  the 
Church  in  a  flame.'  '  And,  finally,  he  measured  swords 
with  the  Roman  Catholics,  first  in  a  public  letter  addressed 
to  the  Bishop  of  Meaux,  the  famous  Bossuet,  justifying 
Bishop  Bull's  use  of  the  term  ■  Catholic  Church '  as 
embracing  the  English  Church;  this  was  taken  up  in 
consequence  of  Bossuet's  letter  to  Kobert  Nelson  on  the 
subject  in  1094  ;  and  then,  after  he  had  been  brought  into 
closer  communication  with  Koman  Catholics  at  Bar-le- 
Duc,  in  a  work  in  the  form  of  dialogue  entitled  '  The  Case 
stated  between  the  Church  of  Borne  and  the  Church  of 
England'  (1713).  When  to  these  are  added  his  Answer 
to  Burnet,  his  reflections  on  Tillotson,  his  reply  to 
Higden's  '  View  of  the  English  Constitution,'  and  other 
writings  against  those  whom  he  considered  unfaithful 
members  of  the  Church  of  England,  it  will  be  seen  that 
Leslie  pretty  nearly  boxed  the  compass  of  controversial 
divinity  so  far  as  England  was  concerned  during  his 
lifetime. 

George  Hickes  was  as  keen  a  combatant  as  CharL  a 
Leslie  ;  but  he  does  not  occupy  so  large  a  space  under  the 
present  heading,  partly  because,  as  recognised  leader  of 
the  Nonjurors,  he,  perhaps,  felt  in  honour  bound  to  defend 
with  his  pen  Nonjurors  qua  Nonjurors,  and  his  works  on 
tli is  point  do  not  come  within  our  purview,  and  partly 
because  he  was  more  engrossed  with  non-controversial 
subjects,  as  will  appear  in  a  later  section.  But  his  con- 
tribntiona  to  one  controversy  are  peculiarly  valuable,  not 
so  much  from  their  intrinsic  merits  (though  these  were 
not  slight)  as  from   the  position  which   he  held.      He  was 

apposed  to  be  the  captain,  as  it  were,  of  the  advanced 
guard  ol  the  Nonjurors— that  is,  of  that  section  of  them 

1  Bee  I  ife,  p.  171. 


CONTEOVEESIAL  WOEKS— HICKBS'S  &  BEETT'S    395 

which  was  thought  to  approach  most  nearly  to  Eome ; 
but  his  writings  prove,  if  proof  be  needed,  that  he  had 
not  in  reality  the  slightest  tendency  in  that  direction. 
He  published  in  1687  *  An  Apologetical  Vindication  of 
the  Church  of  England,'  which  Bishop  Gibson  afterwards 
thought  so  good  a  defence  of  the  English  as  against  the 
Koman  Church  that  he  included  it  in  his  '  Preservatives 
against  Popery  ' ;  in  1704  '  Several  Letters  which  passed 
between  Dr.  Hickes  and  a  Eoman  Priest,'  in  which  he 
defended  the  Anglican  position  with  great  learning  and 
ability ;  and  in  1710  '  A  Second  Collection  of  Contro- 
versial Letters  relating  to  the  Church  of  England  and 
Church  of  Home  and  an  Honourable  Lady ' — that  is, 
the  Lady  Gratiana  Carew.  Innumerable  sermons  and 
pamphlets  were  also  published  by  Hickes  on  controversial 
subjects,  but  these  need  not  be  specified  in  a  general 
sketch  like  the  present.1 

What  has  been  said  about  George  Hickes  applies  also 
to  his  convert,  Thomas  Brett,  whose  chief  writings  hardly 
come  under  the  present  head ;  and  those  which  do  are 
quite  as  much  historical  as  controversial.  Nevertheless, 
his  '  Account  of  Church  Government '  (1707),  his  '  Eeview 
of  Lutheran  Principles'  (1714),  his  'Necessity  of  dis- 
covering Christ's  Body  in  the  Holy  Communion  '  (1720), 
his  '  Discourses  concerning  the  ever  Blessed  Trinity ' 
(1720),  his  'Answer  to  the  "Plain  Account  of  the 
Sacrament "  [by  Hoadly]  '  (1735),  his  '  Remarks  on  Dr. 
Waterland's  Eeview  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  ' 
(1741),  his  'Four  Letters  on  the  Necessity  of  Epi- 
scopal Communion '  (1743)  are  all  controversial  works, 
and  are  written  not  only  with  great  ability,  but  in 
a    courteous,   gentlemanly  —  in  fact,   Christian  —  spirit 

1  A  full  list  will  be  found  in  the  article  on  '  Hickes,  George,'  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 


39G  THE  NONJURORS 

which    it    would    have    been    well    if   many   others   had 
imitated. 

Another  friend  of  Hickes,  Nathanael  Spinckes,  though 
he  is  generally  regarded  as  a  saint  rather  than  a  disputant, 
took  a  considerable  part  in  the  religious  controversies  of 
the  day,  writing  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  Brett  wrote. 
In  1705  he  put  forth  a  work  entitled  '  The  Essay  towards 
a  Proposal  for  Catholic  Communion  answered  Chapter 
by  Chapter.'  This  was  a  reply  to  a  Mr.  Bissett,  who 
proposed  a  reconciliation  of  the  Church  of  England  with 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  has  a  special  interest  as  show- 
ing that  a  trusted  leader  of  the  Nonjurors  whom  many 
followed  had  no  hope  of  a  concordat  between  the  two 
Churches.  In  1714  he  returned  to  the  charge  in  a  work 
entitled  'The  Case  fully  stated,'  &c. — that  is,  the  case 
between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Church  of 
Rome ;  and  yet  again,  in  1718,  in  '  The  Case  farther  stated 
between  the  Church  of  Home  and  the  Church  of  England, 
wherein  the  Chief  Point  about  the  Supremacy  is  fully 
discussed  in  a  Dialogue  between  a  Roman  Catholic  and  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  England.'  He  also  entered  the 
lists  in  1705  against  the  '  French  Prophets,'  a  set  of 
enthusiasts  claiming  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  who  had  been 
driven  from  their  home  in  the  Cevennes,  and  found  a 
refuge  in  England,  where  they  anticipated  some  of  those 
physical  phenomena  which  marked  the  early  Methodist 
movement.  Spinckes's  work  was  entitled  'The  New 
Pretenders  to  Prophecy  re-examined,  and  their  Pretences 
shown  fco  be  Groundless  and  False.'  In  this  crusade 
against  the  Camisard  refugees,  as  they  were  called, 
Spinckes  found  himself  in  strange  company;  for  not 
only  did  his  friend  Hickes  write  against  them  ('Enthu- 
BxorciBed  '),  hut  also  Eoadly,  Whiston,  Shaftesbury, 
and  Calamy    a  medlej  set. 


CONTEOVEESIAL  WOEKS— LAW'S  397 

Henry  Dodwell  also  brought  his  vast  stores  of  learning 
to  bear  upon  subjects  on  which  the  Church  of  England 
was  at  variance  with  the  Church  of  Home  on  the  one 
side  and  the  various  Protestant  sects  on  the  other ;  but 
most,  if  not  all,  of  his  writings  on  these  subjects  were 
earlier  than  the  Nonjuring  separation ;  after  which  he 
devoted  himself  either  to  questions  connected  with  that 
separation  or  to  general  subjects. 

It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  dwell  upon  him,  nor 
yet  to  do  more  than  mention  an  able  work  by  that 
learned  man,  Laurence  Howell,  on  the  Roman  con- 
troversy, the  title  of  which  tells  its  own  tale : 

A  View  of  the  Pontificate  :  From  its  supposed  Beginning 
to  the  End  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  a.d.  1563.  In  which  the 
Corruptions  of  the  Scriptures  and  Sacred  Antiquity,  Forgeries  in 
the  Councils,  and  Incroachments  of  the  Court  of  Eorne  on  the 
Church  and  State,  to  support  their  Infallibility,  Supremacy,  and 
other  Modern  Doctrines,  are  set  in  a  true  Light  [1712]. 

Another   edition   appeared   in  1716   under  the  less  por- 
tentous title  of  '  The  History  of  the  Pontificate.' 

But  there  is  another  controversial  writer  who  cannot 
be  dismissed  so  summarily.  William  Law,  while  yet  a 
young  and  unknown  man,  only  just  turned  thirty,  leapt 
with  a  bound  into  fame  by  his  '  Three  Letters  to  the 
Bishop  of  Bangor,'  the  ablest  of  the  voluminous  writings 
on  the  Bangorian  controversy.  The  Letters  were  pub- 
lished in  1717,  and  their  reputation  has  gone  on  increas- 
ing rather  than  diminishing  until  the  present  day.  But 
they  have  always  been  appreciated.  Jones  of  Nayland 
described  them  as  '  incomparable  for  truth  of  argument, 
brightness  of  wit,  and  purity  of  English.'  Mr.  F.  D. 
Maurice  thought  that  the  ■  Letters  shewed  the  powers 
and  temptations  of  a  singularly  able  controversialist.'1 
The  '  temptations '  referred  to  were  probably  a  tendency 

1  Present  Day  Papers  on  Prominent  Questions  in  Tlieology. 


398  THE  NONJURORS 

to  run  riot  in  sarcasm  and  to  indulge  in  extreme  severity. 
Law  is,  no  doubt,  severe,  and  when  he  grew  older  he 
toned  down  considerably.  But  to  a  man  of  his  opinions 
the  provocation  was  strong,  for  the  bishop  glaringly  set 
at  defiance  the  most  obvious  principles  of  the  Church  in 
which  he  bore  high  office.  Not  less  severe,  and  hardly 
Less  brilliant,  is  Law's  next  controversial  work,  which 
appeared  in  1723.  In  1714  Dr.  Bernard  Mandeville  had 
published  a  poem  entitled  'The  Grumbling  Hive,  or 
Knaves  turned  Honest,'  the  gist  of  which  was  that  when 
the  bees  turned  honest  they  lost  thereby  their  greatness 
and  their  wealth ;  and  in  1723  he  re-edited  it,  with  notes, 
lest  any  one  should  miss  the  point.  It  was  probably  in- 
tended as  a  sort  of  satire  on  those  who  taught  the  rather 
grovelling  doctrine  of  the  morality  of  consequences,  instead 
of  the  nobler  one  of  the  morality  of  principle.  But  the 
moral,  at  least  on  the  surface,  was  that  it  answered  better 
to  be  dishonest  than  honest,  and  Law  was  not  the  man 
to  allow  so  dangerous  a  theory  to  pass  without  protest. 

Law  generally  singled  out  strong  antagonists ;  and 
as  he  chose  the  ablest  of  the  Latitudinarians  when  he 
attacked  Hoadly,  so  he  chose  the  ablest  of  the  Deists 
when  he  attacked  Tindal,  whose  ■  Christianity  as  old  as 
the  Creation  '  is  the  most  powerful  work  Deism  produced. 
Of  course,  in  one  sense,  Law  held  as  strongly  as  Tindal 
that  Christianity  was  as  old  as  the  Creation ;  but  what 
Tindal  really  meant  was  that  natural  religion  rendered 
revealed  religion  unnecessary  ;  in  other  words,  he  exalted 
reason  at  the  expense  of  revelation.  Against  this  theory 
Law  published,  in  1731-2,  'The  Case  of  Reason,  or 
Natural  Religion  fairly  and  fully  stated  in  Answer  to 
Christianity  as  Old  as  the  Creation,'  in  which  he  antici- 
pated  some  of  the  arguments  in  Bishop  Butler's  master- 
of  four  years  later. 


CONTEOVEESIAL  WOEKS— LAW'S  399 

Law's  sacramental  views  were  always  high,  and,  so 
far  from  being  lowered  when  he  became  a  mystic,  his 
mysticism  only  gave  a  fresh  significance  to  them.  Hence 
the  first  work  which  he  wrote  in  his  mystic  stage  was  •  A 
Demonstration  of  the  Gross  and  Fundamental  Errors  of 
a  late  Book  called  "  A  Plain  Account  of  the  Nature  and 
End  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper'"  (1737). 
The  '  Plain  Account '  was  published  anonymously,  but  its 
writer  was  unquestionably  Law's  old  foe,  Bishop  Hoadly, 
who  practically  reduced  the  Sacrament  to  a  bare  com- 
memorative act.  The  author  of  the  '  Plain  Account ' 
contended  that  •  the  bare  words  of  Christ  in  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Sacrament,  interpreted  according  to  the 
common  rules  of  speaking  in  like  cases,  tell  us  all  that 
can  be  known  about  the  nature  and  effects  of  that  Sacra- 
ment ;  '  so  that,  argues  Law,  '  they  would  signify  no 
more  to  him  [a  Christian]  than  they  would  to  a  heathen 
who  had  by  chance  found  a  bit  of  paper  in  the  fields 
with  the  same  words  writ  upon  it.'  He  thinks  that  'this 
author's  contrivance  is  as  unfit  for  the  purpose  as  an 
iron  key  would  be  to  open  the  gate  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.'     Law  was  not  wanting  in  raciness. 

Two  more  controversial  works  of  Law  must  be  noticed : 
'  An  Earnest  and  Serious  Answer  to  Dr.  Trapp's  Discourse 
of  the  Folly,  Sin  and  Danger  of  being  Eighteous  Over- 
much'  (1740),  and  'A  Short  but  Sufficient  Confutation  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Warburton's  projected  Defence  (as  he  calls 
it)  of  Christianity ' — that  is,  in  '  The  Divine  Legation 
of  Moses '  (1757).  Both  are  written  in  sorrow  rather 
than  in  anger  ;  it  shocked  Law  as  '  an  enthusiast '  that  a 
brother  clergyman  who  had  been  in  a  high  position  at 
Oxford,  and  was  now  a  prominent  divine  in  London,1 

1  Dr.  Trapp  was  the  first  Professor  of  Poetry  at  Oxford,  holding  that 
office  from  1708  to  1718 ;  a  fine  portrait  of  him  may  be  seen  in  the  picture 


400  THE  NONJUKORS 

should  even  seem  to  lower  the  high  standard  of  morality 
which  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  Gospel,  and  espe- 
cially of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  obviously  suggested  ; 
and  it  equally  shocked  him  as  '  a  mystic,'  who  held  that 
man  was  an  emanation  of  the  Deity,  to  think  that  another 
clergyman,  who  was  on  the  high  road  to  a  bishopric, 
should  believe  that  such  a  being  was  ever  left  in  doubt 
about  his  eternal  destiny. 

It  may  appear  strange  that  Law  published  nothing 
on  the  Roman  controversy,  for  his  '  Letters  to  a  Lady 
Inclined  to  Enter  the  Church  of  Rome,'  which  woe 
printed  by  an  enthusiastic  admirer  nearly  twenty  years 
after  his  death,  were  never  intended  by  him  for  publica- 
tion ;  but  the  fact  is  that,  though  he  had  never  the 
faintest  inclination  to  join  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  was 
not  so  distinctly  anti-Roman  as  most  of  the  Nonjurors 
were.  It  may  also  appear  strange  that,  though  the 
Methodists  were  perpetually  pointing  out  the  deficiency  a 
of  Law,  he  never  wrote  one  word  in  self-defence  ;  for  the 
Blight  tract  'Of  Justification  by  Faith  and  Works:  a 
Dialogue  between  a  Methodist  and  a  Churchman,'  was 
really  directed  against  Calvinism,  not  Methodism  ;  but 
Law  never  wrote  against  men  whom  he  regarded  as 
spiritually-minded  and  earnest;  they  might  say  and  writ.' 
what  they  pleased  about  him;  but  he  never  took  up  his 
pen  to  write  anything  for  publication  against  them  '  lest 
haply  he  should  be  found  to  be  fighting  against  God.' 

(3)  Historical  and  Biographical  Works. 

Taking  the  word  'history'  in  its  proper  sense  of 
inquiry  or  investigation,  and  especially  investigation  into 
ill-  past,  it  includes  the  most  valuable  pail  of  all  the 
galltrj  of  the  Bodleian,  and  a  copy  of  it  in  the  hull  oi  Wadham  Col 

wfa  eh  li.-  WOI  u  menihrr. 


PATEISTIO  LEAENING  OF  NONJUEOES       401 

literary  work  done  by  the  Nonjurors,  viz.  that  which 
related  to  the  early  Church  and  the  primitive  Fathers. 
Professor  J.  J.  Blunt,  after  having  spoken  of  the  dis- 
couraging effect  of  the  Puritanism  of  the  seventeenth 
century  upon  the  study  of  such  subjects,  adds  :  '  But  after 
awhile  came  the  Revolution ;  an  event  which  shed  a 
much  more  disastrous  influence  on  the  taste  for  patristical 
learning,  because  a  more  enduring  and  insidious  one  than 
the  Rebellion.'  And  then  he  expresses  his  opinion  that 
'  the  Nonjurors  carried  away  with  them  that  regard  for 
primitive  times  which  with  them  was  destined  by  degrees 
almost  to  expire.' l  Curiously  enough,  a  Nonjuror,  who 
took  a  very  prominent  part  in  the  attempt  to  revive 
these  studies,  writing  about  thirty  years  after  the  Revolu- 
tion, takes  quite  an  opposite  view.  '  There  seems,'  writes 
Dr.  Brett,  '  at  this  time  [1720],  to  be  a  general  Inclination 
in  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England  to  enquire  into  Anti- 
quities of  the  Christian  Church,  more  than  I  am  persuaded 
has  been  at  any  time  since  the  Reformation  ' ;  and  he  ex- 
pressly intimates  that  he  is  speaking  '  not  of  Nonjurors  only 
(who  are  now  reduced  to  a  very  inconsiderable  number), 
but  those  also  who  are  of  the  publick  communion  of  the 
Church  of  England.' 2  Which  was  right,  Professor  Blunt 
or  Dr.  Brett  ?  The  answer  is  a  remarkable  illustration 
of  the  difficulty  a  contemporary  finds  in  judging  the  signs 
of  his  own  times.  Brett  judged  by  what  was  going  on 
when  he  wrote.  He  mentions  especially  '  Mr.  Bingham 
and  Mr.  Johnson  '  of  Cranbrook,  and  he  probably  thought 
also  of  Cave,  Bull,  "Waterland,  and  others  who  were  deeply 
interested  in,  and  conversant  with,  antiquity.  But  Blunt 
could  take  a  general  survey  and  review  the  result  from 
the  vantage  ground  of  a  century ;  and  experience  shows 

1  Lectures  on  the  Bight  Use  of  tlie  Fathers,  Lecture  i.  p.  18,  et  seq. 
"-  Brett's  Collection  of  Liturgies,  p.  364. 


402  THE  NONJURORS 

that  his  view  was  correct,  and  that  the  hopeful  antici- 
pations of  Brett  were  not  fulfilled.  The  tone  of  mind 
introduced  at  the  Eevolution  was  quite  antagonistic  to 
any  sympathetic  study  of  antiquity.  Men  cannot  throw 
themselves  heart  and  soul  into  the  study  of  phases  of 
thought  with  which  they  are  not  in  sympathy,  and  it  was 
because  Nonjurors  were  more  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit 
of  the  early  Church,  not  because  they  were  more  intelligent 
or  more  industrious,  that  patristic  learning  was  found 
among  them  more  than  anywhere  else  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  Dr.  Hickes,  their  recognised  leader,  •  was  a  great 
master  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities,'  and  did  much  to  create 
an  interest  in  the  subject  among  his  followers.  His  own 
contributions  consist  rather  in  the  general  spirit  which 
pervades  all  his  work,  than  in  any  great  composition  of 
his  own  on  the  subject,  though,  of  course,  his  '  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Catholick  Church,'  and  Preface  to  '  Devotions 
in  the  Antient  Way  of  Offices '  bear  directly  upon  it. 

But  Hickes's  convert,  Thomas  Brett,  really  did  produce 
a  great  work,  which  at  the  time  was  unique  in  its  way, 
viz.  'A  Collection  of  Liturgies  used  by  the  Primitive 
Church '  (1720).  It  embraces  eight  Liturgies,1  the  Cle- 
mentine, St.  James's,  St.  Mark's,  St.  John  Chrysostom's, 
St.  Basil's,  the  Ethiopian,  Nestorius',  and  Severius'.  In 
his  previous  'Account  of  Church  Government'  (1707), 
the  subject  is  treated  at  large,  and,  in  fact,  in  all  his 
books  he  shows  a  deep  interest  in,  and  makes  frequent 
references  to,  primitive  antiquity. 

Dr.  Hickes  also  stamped  with  his  approval,  and  pro- 
bably suggested  the  writing  of  another  very  valuable  and 
interesting  booh  whioh  is  based  upon  primitive  antiquity. 
Theauthor,  Archibald  Campbell,  was  not,  strictly  speaking. 

H  is  parbtpi  nrr.ll.'SR  to  remark   that  '  Liturgy  '  is  used  in  its  .indent 

mom,  »k  tl.o  Offlet  c,f  the  Bolj  Baoharist 


CAMPBELL'S   '  MIDDLE   STATE  '  403 

an  English  Nonjuror,  but  he  thoroughly  identified  him- 
self with  them,  lived  almost  entirely  among  them,  and 
brought  out  his  book  under  the  auspices  of  their  head. 
It  is  commonly  called  '  Campbell's  Middle  State,'  but 
its  full  title  is : 

Some  Primitive  Doctrines  Eevived  :  or,  The  Intermediate  or 
Middle  State  of  Departed  Souls  (as  to  Happiness  or  Misery) 
Before  the  Day  of  Judgment,  plainly  prov'd  by  Holy  Scriptui'e 
and  the  Concurrent  Testimony  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church. 
To  which  is  prefixed  the  Judgment  of  Dr.  Hickes  concerning 
the  book  and  subject  [1713]. 

Never  perhaps  was  there  a  time  when  men's  minds 
more  required  to  be  settled  on  the  momentous  but  mys- 
terious question  of  the  Future  State.  It  had  been  the 
subject  of  a  most  unsatisfactory  discussion  at  the  close 
of  the  seventeenth  century  in  consequence  of  a  sermon 
on  'The  Eternity  of  Hell  Torments,'  by  Archbishop 
Tillotson;  and  the  result  had  been  disastrous  in  every 
way  to  morals  and  religion.  It  was  highly  character- 
istic of  the  age  that  in  that  discussion  no  one  appears  to 
have  gone  back  to  primitive  times  ;  and  the  primitive  doc- 
trine of  an  Intermediate  State  seems  to  have  fallen  entirely 
into  abeyance.  It  was  revived  by  Bishop  Campbell ;  but 
as  he  was  a  Nonjuror  his  book  did  not  catch  hold  of  the 
public  mind.  It  was  a  sad  pity  that  it  did  not;  for  I 
verily  believe  that  the  eschatology  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  combining  as  it  did  the  utmost  severity  in  theory 
with  the  utmost  laxity  in  practice  necessarily  resulting 
from  an  only  half  belief,  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of 
the  low  estate  into  which  morals  and  religion  fell  during 
that  period.  Campbell's  tone,  style,  and  method  are  all 
admirable,  and  there  is  a  calmness  and  modesty  about 
his  work  which  make  it  very  attractive.  It  is  a  book 
that  might  have  done  a  world  of  good  at  the  time,  and  its 


404  THE  NONJURORS 

republication  would  not  be  useless  now.  Dr.  Hickes 
truly  points  out  in  his  ■  Judgment '  that,  '  so  far  from 
being  Popish,  there  cannot  be  a  more  effectual  Defensa- 
tion  against  the  Roman  Heresy  than  a  free  and  impartial 
Revival  of  Primitive  Principles.  To  restore  these,  and 
consequently  to  foreclose  the  way  among  us  against  all 
Papal  Innovations  and  Corruptions  is  the  design  of  this 
book ; '  and  the  execution  was  equal  to  the  design,  but  it 
was  not  the  kind  of  work  to  appeal  to  the  general  public  in 
the  eighteenth  century.  In  a  fine  passage  Hickes  describes 
what  Campbell  means  by  that  middle  state  of  which  the 
vast  majority  of  the  public  had  probably  never  heard. 

His  Middle  State  for  the  righteous  is  but  as  the  Borders  or 
Suburbs  of  Heaven  or  as  the  Bay  and  Entrance  into  that 
Blessed  Kingdom,  wherein  they  are  very  happy,  but  cannot  yet 
attain  their  full  happiness  in  the  Presence  or  the  Beatific 
Vision  of  God,  till  all  their  Brethren  be  perfected  with  them, 
and  they  can  all  receive  their  Crowns  of  Glory  in  that  day. 

By  ■  the  righteous '  he  means  '  all  souls  departed  with  the 
sign  of  faith.' 

Another  Nonjuror  brought  his  knowledge  of  primitive 
antiquity  to  bear  upon  a  question  which  much  needed  to 
be  cleared  up.  It  was  this :  In  1G91  Peter  King,  after- 
wards Lord  Chancellor,  then  a  young  man  of  twenty- 
two,  who  had  been  bred  a  Presbyterian,  published 
anonymously  the  first  part  of  a  book  with  this  ambitious 
title:  '  An  Enquiry  into  the  Constitution,  Discipline,  Unity, 
and  Worship  of  the  Primitive  Church  that  flourished 
within  the  first  three  hundred  years  of  Christ.  Faithfully 
collected  out  of  the  extant  writings  of  those  days.' 
The  work  was  a  remarkable  performance,  considering 
that  the  writer  was  ;i  mere  hoy,  who  had  had  no  par- 
ticular advantages  of  education.  It  attracted  the  atten- 
tion of  John   Locke,  who  was  Sine's  first  oonsin  once 


SCLATEE  ON  THE   PRIMITIVE   CHUECH      405 

removed,  and  who  virtually  adopted  him  as  his  son.  A 
sort  of  halo  was  shed  over  a  book  which  was  thus 
patronised  by  the  most  famous  philosopher  of  the  day ; 
and  this  may  have  been  one  reason  why  it  was  not 
answered,  for  it  clearly  required  answering.  It  was 
kindly  and  temperately  written,  but  the  impression  it 
leaves  is  that  Presbyterianism  was  the  original  form  of 
Church  government,  or  that  no  settled  form  could  be 
gathered  from  Holy  Scripture  and  primitive  practice. 
But,  strange  to  say,  it  remained  unanswered  for  more 
than  twenty  years ;  and  in  1713  King  published  another 
edition  with  a  '  Second  Part '  added,  treating  of  cere- 
monies and  worship.  Then  at  last  the  Nonjuring  clergy- 
man, William  Sclater,  with  much  diffidence  and  many 
apologies  for  his  presumption  (which  were  quite  unneces- 
sary), published  anonymously,  in  1717,  a  very  able  and 
exhaustive  answer  under  the  title  of  '  The  Original 
Draught  of  the  Primitive  Church  by  a  Presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England.'  In  his  very  modest  Preface  Sclater 
gives  us  his  reason  for  undertaking  the  task  : 

In  his  Preface  he  [King]  shews  an  humble  diffidence  of  his 
youthful  performance,  and  desires  another  sense  might  be  given 
of  his  several  quotations,  if  need  required,  for  the  better  informa- 
tion of  himself  and  others.  I  confess  I  saw  need  enough  of  that 
at  my  first  perusal  of  the  book,  and  not  a  little  wondered  that 
no  friendly  band  had  done  him  that  kindness  long  before. 

So  Sclater  did  it  himself,  and  did  it  very  well ;  his  book 
quite  bears  out  what  we  are  told  of  the  character  of  the 
writer,  viz.  that  he  was  '  a  man  of  singular  modesty,  of 
unaffected  piety,  and  of  uncommon  learning.' l  There  is 
a  pleasant  story,  which  one  fondly  hopes  may  be  true, 
but  for  which  it  must  be  owned  that  the  evidence  is  not 
strong.     It  is  said  that  Sclater's  manuscript  was  seized 

1  See  Lathbury's  History  of  the  Nonjurors,  p.  302. 


406  THE   NONJURORS 

among  other  papers  in  the  house  of  Spinckes,  and  was 
submitted  to  King,  who  returned  it,  confessing  that  it 
was  a  sufficient  answer  to  that  part  of  the  book  with  which 
it  dealt,  and  desiring  that  it  might  be  published.  At  any 
rate,  it  is  certain  that  King  himself  became  a  Churchman, 
un<l  it  is  said  that  he  then  offered  Sclater  a  living  ;  but  he 
did  not  become  Lord  Chancellor  until  after  Sclater's 
death,  and  before  then  what  living  had  he  to  offer  ?  And 
if  he  did  make  the  offer,  Sclater,  as  a  Nonjuror,  could 
not  have  accepted  it.  '  The  Original  Draught '  was 
republished  at  Oxford  in  1840. 

Laurence  Howell's  '  Synopsis  Canonum  '  was  another 
monumental  illustration  of  the  patient  industry  with 
which  the  Nonjurors  investigated  the  history  of  the  early 
Church.  It  appeared  in  three  separate  instalments,  the 
first  in  1708,  '  A  Synopsis  of  the  Canons  of  the  Holy 
Apostles  and  of  the  Councils,  Ecumenical  and  Provincial, 
received  by  the  Greek  Church;  also  of  the  Councils, 
Decrees,  and  Laws  of  the  British  and  Anglo-Saxon 
Churches;  together  with  the  Constitutions,  as  weU 
Provincial  (namely  from  Stephen  Langton  to  Henry 
Chichele),as  Legatine,  &c,  brought  into  a  Compendium;' 
the  second  in  1710,  'A  Synopsis  of  the  Canons  of  the 
Latin  Church  and  its  Decrees;  in  which  the  spurious 
canons,  forged  Kpistles,  and  supposititious  decrees  of  that 
Church  air  brought  U>  li-iit  and  distinguished  from  the 
genuine.' '  The  third  part  did  not  appear  until  1715,  the 
reason  of  the  long  delay  being  that  the  manuscript  was 
burnt  in  the  fire  at  Bowyer's  printing  office  in  1712 ; - 
and  ili«  re  is  something  plaintive  in  the  author's  announce- 
ment of  it  as  •  being  once  more  finished  in  1715. '3 

1  Those  me  iii. Tai  translations  "f  the  Latin  titles. 

i>.  868. 
1  Bowell  had  alio  another  disappointment  in  regard  to  the  Dedication. 
Bm  n  i         Moms,  IL  LS6. 


COLLIEK'S  '  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTOEY  '      407 

The  same  year  (1708)  which  saw  the  first  instalment 
of  Howell's  '  Synopsis '  saw  also  the  first  instalment  of  a 
still  more  important  and  popular  work,  '  Collier's  Eccle- 
siastical History  of  Great  Britain.'  "When  it  appeared 
it  was  unique ;  there  was  positively  no  other  book  in 
the  English  language  which  traversed  the  same  ground, 
though  of  course  many  other  authors  had  gone  over  parts 
of  it ;  and  to  this  day  it  is  frequently  quoted  as  an 
authority.  Of  course  the  writer,  with  his  strong  con- 
victions, shows  his  colours  ;  but,  from  his  own  point  of 
view,  he  is  wonderfully  fair  and  trustworthy.  The  second 
volume  appeared  in  1714.  Both  were  folios,  and  have 
been  more  than  once  reprinted  in  nine  volumes,  8vo., 
with  a  life  of  the  author  prefixed.  The  best  life  is  that 
written  by  Mr.  Lathbury,  the  historian  of  the  Nonjurors, 
who  prefixed  it  to  the  edition  of  1852.  Strange  to  say, 
Mr.  Collier's  friends  do  not  appear  to  have  anticipated 
any  great  success  for  the  work,  although  the  writer  had 
already  shown  his  powers  and  won  his  reputation  in 
several  previous  writings.  But  these  writings  were, 
with  one  exception,  not  strictly  speaking  historical.  That 
exception  was  '  The  Great  Historical,  Geographical, 
Genealogical,  and  Poetical  Dictionary  '  (1701-5),  which 
was  not  one  of  Collier's  literary  successes ;  and  his  friends 
seem  to  have  argued  from  it  that  the  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory would  also  be  a  failure.  Hearne  speaks  very  dis- 
paragingly of  the  Dictionary,  and  augurs  badly  for  the 
History.1  But  when  the  book  came  out,  he  is  agreeably 
disappointed ;  so  he  adds  a  note  to  his  first  entry  (i.  316)  : 
'  The  work  is  since  published,  and  is  good ; '  and  is  quite 
enthusiastic  about  vol.  ii.,  which  gives  him  the  additional 
satisfaction  of  anticipating  that  Collier  will  cut  out  the 
Whig  Church  historian,  John  Inett.2     Curiously  enough, 

1  See  Heame's  Collections,  i.  38,  316  :  ii.  35,  38.        2  Ibid.  iii.  45-6. 


408  THE  NONJURORS 

Collier  must  have  done  just  what  Hearne  prophesied 
he  would  not  do,  viz.  '  search  Records,  &c.  ;  '  one  of  the 
great  merits  of  his  History  is  that  it  is  based  upon 
original  authorities. 

From  Collier  the  historian  to  Carte  the  historian  is  a 
natural  transition.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  stan- 
dard works,  from  the  Church  point  of  view,  on  the  ec- 
clesiastical and  civil  history  of  England  should  both  have 
been  written  by  Nonjurors  ;  and  the  same  merits  charac- 
terise both.  Carte,  like  Collier,  strove  his  utmost  to  be 
fair  all  round  ;  like  Collier,  he  undertook  original  research 
before  he  presumed  to  write  ;  and,  like  Collier,  he  was 
not  ashamed  to  show  his  colours,  and  therefore,  of 
course,  provoked  criticism.  The  project  of  his  His- 
tory was  certainly  formed  as  early  as  1736 — probably 
earlier — and  the  first  volume  did  not  appear  until  1747  ; 
so  he  took  time  over  his  work,  and  spared  no  pains  in 
investigation,  searching,  among  other  sources,  the  royal 
archives  in  Paris  where  much  of  the  History  was  written. 
The  encouragement,  and,  indeed,  substantial  aid,  which 
he  received  in  the  execution  of  his  task  are  very  remark- 
able, considering  that  he  was  a  known  Jacobite,  and  was 
actually  arrested  and  confined  for  a  short  time  while  the 
work  was  going  on,  owing  to  an  alarm  of  a  French 
invasion  in  support  of  a  Jacobite  rising  in  1744.  How 
little  real  matter  of  offence  there  was  to  the  'powers  that 
be  '  in  his  first  volume  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  objection 
was  taken  merely  to  a  note  in  which  he  expressed  his 
faith  in  '  a  cure  for  the  king's  evil  wrought  by  the  lineal 
descendant  of  a  race  of  kings  who  had,  indeed  for  a  long 
ion  of  ages,  cored  that  disease  by  the  royal  touch.' 
That  note  was  Buffioient  to  withdraw  from  his  History 
the  patronage  of  the  English  public,  which  was  then  In  a 
)""  I  nervous  alarm  aboul  the  '  lineal  descendant.'    it  was 


CAETE'S  «  HISTOEY   OF  ENGLAND  '  409 

a  pity  his  friends  did  not  persuade  him  to  abstain  from 
throwing  down  this  apple  of  discord,  as  the  cure  took  place 
at  Avignon  ;  and  therefore  the  note  was  quite  gratuitous, 
and  might  have  been  spared  without  at  all  affecting  the 
History  of  England.  Carte,  however,  was  not  discouraged, 
but  went  bravely  on  with  and  completed  his  book,  the 
fourth  and  last  volume  appearing  after  his  death.  The 
work  was  better  appreciated  when  the  writer  was  no 
longer  living,  and  therefore  no  longer  dangerous,  and 
when  Jacobite  alarms  had  become  a  thing  of  the  past. 
It  deserved  to  be  welcomed  warmly  at  least  by  one  poli- 
tical party  ;  for  the  Tory  history  of  Carte  is  beyond  all 
question  the  result  of  more  diligent  and  original  research 
than  the  rival  Whig  history  of  Eapin,  which  previously 
held  the  field ;  it  was  a  nearer  approach  to  the  standard 
history  of  England,  until  Hume's  work  superseded  both. 

Among  other  Nonjurors  who  furnished  contributions 
to  our  knowledge  of  Church  history  were  Francis 
Brokesby,  who  wrote  '  An  History  of  the  Government  of 
the  Primitive  Church,'  &c.  (1712)  ;  Thomas  Bedford,  who 
edited  the  chronicler  Simeon  of  Durham's  '  History  of  the 
Church  of  Durham  ' ;  and  George  Smith,  who,  when  only 
twenty-two  years  of  age,  took  up  his  father's  unfinished 
edition  of  '  Bede's  Ecclesiastical  History,'  and  completed 
it  so  successfully  that  it  superseded  all  others,  and  was 
for  a  long  time  the  standard  edition ;  Mr.  Plummer,  the 
highest  authority  on  the  subject,  speaks  of  it  in  terms  of 
warm  admiration.  Nor  must  we  forget  the  services  ren- 
dered by  Thomas  Baker,  who  lavishly  imparted  informa- 
tion to  Church  historians,  among  others,  out  of  his  own 
ample  stores  ;  nor  Thomas  Hearne  and  Eichard  Kawlin- 
son,  who  were  ever  collecting  knowledge  on  this  and 
kindred  subjects  with  indefatigable  labour. 

The   department  of   biography   is   in   some   respects 


410  THE  NONJURORS 

rather  disappointing.  Nelson's  'Life  of  Bishop  Bull' 
seems  to  me  the  most  satisfactory  work  of  the  kind 
writteD  by  a  Nonjuror,  unless  it  be  the  •  Life  of  Am- 
brose Bonwicke,'  about  which  enough  has  been  said. 
It  looks  like  black  ingratitude  not  to  add  Lee's  'Life 
of  Kettlewell,'  for  there  is  no  single  work  which  gives 
more  information  about  the  earlier  Nonjurors,  and 
which  has  therefore  been  more  largely  drawn  upon 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  present  work.  But  that 
is  the  very  reason  why  it  is  not  so  satisfactory  as  a 
biography.  It  rambles  too  far  afield,  and  does  not  con- 
centrate attention  sufficiently  on  Kettlewell.  In  fact, 
there  is  no  good  contemporary  life  of  a  Nonjuror  by  a 
Nonjuror,  to  our  great  loss.  Brokesby's  '  Life  of  Dodwell ' 
is  a  very  slight  and  unsatisfactory  performance.  Hickes's 
'  Life '  was  commenced  by  his  friend,  Hilkiah  Bedford,  to 
whom  he  left  all  his  letters  and  papers,  but  it  remained 
in  an  unfinished  state  in  manuscript,  having  only  reached 
the  year  1G89 — just  the  time  when  the  subject  became 
most  interesting.  Collier  also  began  to  write  an  auto- 
biography for  the  benefit  of  the  '  Biographia  Britannica,' 
but  he  again  provokingly  left  off  at  the  ^Revolution,  just 
when  his  life  also  became  most  interesting.  Hearne's  auto- 
biography, in  spite  of  his  friend  Rawlinson's  mean  opinion 
of  '  Tom's  Life  of  Himself,'  is  about  the  best  we  possess, 
and  his  'Diary'  is,  of  course,  invaluable.  Byrom'a 
•  Remains '  are  delightful,  and  so  are  Denis  Granville's, 
but  these  are  rather  materials  for  biography  than  bio- 
graphies; and  the  same  may  be  said  of  Rawlinson's 
very  valuable  collections  for  his  continuation  of  Wood's 
1  \tlnn;r  Oxonienses.'  Of  complete  biographies  we  have 
Brett's  '  Life  of  John  Johnson,  of  Cranbrook,'  but  this  is 
merely  a  brief  sketch,  and  Carte's  'Life  of  James,  Duke 
of  Ormonde1  (1736),  which  certain!)  does  nol  err  on  the 


POETEY— KEN'S  411 

side  of  brevity,  but  rather  lays  itself  open  to  Dr.  Johnson's 
criticism  :  '  The  matter  is  diffused  in  too  many  pages ; 
there  is  no  animation,  no  compression,  no  vigour.  Two 
good  volumes  in  duodecimo  might  be  made  out  of  two  in 
folio.' x  Thomas  Smith's  '  Vitas  quorundam  eruditis- 
simorum  et  illustriuni  virorum  '  was  hardly  for  the  general 
reader,  and  Hilkiah  Bedford's  '  Life  of  John  Barwick  ' 
was  only  a  translation.  But  Koger  North's  'Lives  of 
the  Norths '  and  '  Examen '  of  White  Kennett's  History 
come  under  the  present  head,  and  are  works  of  great 
interest  and  value,  especially  the  former  in  its  latest  form 
under  the  able  editorship  of  Dr.  Jessopp. 

(4)  Poetical  Works. 

The  age  of  the  Nonjurors  was  not  a  poetical  age,  and 
the  Nonjurors  themselves  did  not  sacrifice  much  to  the 
Muses.  The  first  who  claims  our  attention  in  this  con- 
nection is  good  Bishop  Ken,  who  seems  to  have  found  it  a 
relief  to  disburthen  himself  of  his  thoughts  in  verse  ;  for 
though  he  wrote  much  he  published  nothing,  with  one 
exception  ;  but  then  that  exception  is  his  one  title  to  fame 
as  a  poet.  Some  may  think  that  the  posthumous  publica- 
tion of  his  epic,  '  Edmund  '  ('  Saint  Edmund  '  would  have 
been  a  more  attractive  and  appropriate  title),  of  his  Dedi- 
cations, his  'Anodynes,'  his  'Hymnotheo,'  and  his  '  Hymns 
for  the  Festivals  of  the  Church  '  was  a  cruel  kindness  on 
the  part  of  his  friends ;  for  if  we  had  not  seen  what  he 
did,  we  might  have  let  fancy  run  riot  in  imagining  what 
the  man  who  published  no  verse  except  the  three  im- 
mortal hymns  might  have  done.  Even  with  regard  to  the 
three  hymns  themselves,  his  fame,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
rests  only  upon  a  few  verses  culled  out  of  two  of  them. 

1  See  Boswell's  Journal  of  a  Tour  to  the  Hebrides,  p.  236,  in  vol.  v.  of 
edition  of  National  Illustrated  Library. 


412  THE  NONJURORS 

Thousands  who  are  perfectly  familiar  with  about  six 
stanzas  of  the  Morning  and  the  same  number  of  the 
Evening  Hymn  are  quite  strangers  to  the  rest,  and  know 
nothing  at  all  about  the  Midnight  Hymn.  But  the  two 
hymns  in  common  use  (the  verses  omitted  are  unsuitable 
for  psalmody)  are,  and  always  will  be,  the  morning  and 
evening  hymns  par  excellence.  Perhaps  their  extraor- 
dinary and  well-deserved  popularity  has  led  to  the  undue 
depreciation  of  Ken's  other  poetry,  in  which  depreciation 
the  earlier  biographers,  not  at  all  after  the  manner  of 
biographers,  lead  the  way.  At  all  events,  some  very 
touching  passages  occur  in  these  much-decried  poems, 
among  which  the  following  may  be  quoted  as  having  a 
biographical  as  well  as  a  poetical  interest : 

Give  me  the  Priest  these  Graces  shall  possess  : 

Of  an  Ambassador  the  just  Address, 

A  Father's  Tenderness,  a  Shepherd's  Care, 

A  Leader's  Courage,  which  the  Ci'oss  can  bear, 

A  Ruler's  Arm,  a  Watchman's  wakeful  Eye, 

A  Pilot's  Skill  the  Helm  in  Storms  to  ply, 

A  Fisher's  Patience  and  a  Lab'rer's  Toil, 

A  Guide's  Dexterity  to  disembroil, 

A  Prophet's  Inspiration  from  Above, 

A  Teacher's  Knowledge  and  a  Saviour's  Love. 

And  the  '  Hymns  for  the  Festivals  of  the  Church '  have 
at  least  one  claim  to  our  gratitude,  if  the  story  be  true 
that  they  suggested  to  John  Keble  the  idea  of  '  The 
Christian  Year.' 

Elijah  Fenton  was  a  Nonjuror  who  wrote  poetry,  just 
us  his  friend  and  patron.  Alexander  Pope,  was  a  Roman 
Catholic  wIim  wrote  poetry,  but  his  poetry  was  no  more 
connected  with  his  mode  of  faith  than  Pope's  was  with 
his,  so  he  only  requires  to  be  noticed  just  to  show  why  he 
i :  not  noticed. 

The  Same  cannot  unite  be  said  of  that  quasi-Nonjuror, 


POETBY— EENTON'S,   BYROM'S,   ETC.  413 

John  Byroni,  much  of  whose  poetry  was  the  reflection  of 
his  religion  ;  it  was,  in  fact,  William  Law  in  verse.  And 
some  who  can  read  between  the  lines  will  find  in  such 
pieces  as  '  Christians,  awake,  salute  the  happy  morn,' 
1  My  Spirit  longeth  for  Thee,  or,  The  Christian's  Address 
to  his  Soul,'  '  Stones  towards  the  earth  descend,'  traces 
of  that  refined  mysticism  which  he  had  imbibed  from 
Law. 

The  •  Divine  Poems  '  of  "Walter  Harte  cannot,  strictly 
speaking,  be  reckoned  among  Nonjuring  literature,  for 
the  simple  reason  that  the  writer  was  not  a  Nonjuror ; 
but  they  reflected  the  spirit  of  one  who  was.  '  He  had,' 
as  Mr.  Abbey  says,  'been  brought  up  among  the  best 
traditions  of  the  Nonjurors,'  and  '  was  a  student  and 
theologian  of  much  the  same  type  as  his  father,' l  the 
Nonjuror  already  noticed. 

The  '  Devotions  in  the  Antient  Way  of  Offices,'  edited 
by  Dr.  Hickes,  contain  a  number  of  hymns,  some  of  them 
of  considerable  merit.  But  so  many  had  a  hand  in  this 
work  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  who  was  the  composer 
of  these  hymns — probably  not  Dr.  Hickes. 

It  will  be  seen  that  poetry  formed  a  very  small  part  of 
Nonjuring  literature,  and  it  is  somewhat  strange  that  this 
should  be  so,  for  the  Nonjurors  were,  to  a  certain  extent, 
identified  with  the  Jacobites ;  and  Jacobite  songs  and 
ballads,  many  of  them  of  extreme  beauty  and  pathos, 
abounded.  But  these  formed  no  part  of  Nonjuring 
literature,  and  to  touch  upon  them  ever  so  slightly  in  this 
connection  would  be  to  foster  a  false  notion,  already  too 
prevalent,  that  the  Nonjurors  were  a  political  rather 
than  a  religious  party ;  so  I  pass  on  at  once  to  the  next 
section. 

1  English  Church  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  ii.  294-5.     First  Edition. 


,1  THE  NONJURORS 

(5)  Miscellaneous  Works. 

The  literary  work  of  the  Nonjurors  was  so  varied  that 
ii  considerable  part  of  it  can  only  be  grouped  under  this 
va<nie  title.  The  most  important  book  which  comes 
under  this  head  was  what  is  commonly  called  •  Hickes' 
Thesaurus,'  the  proper  title  of  which  is  '  Linguarum 
Veterum  Septentrionalium  Thesaurus,  grammatico- 
criticus  et  archaeologicus.'  This  'stupendous  monument 
of  learning  and  industry,'  as  it  has  been  called,  was 
printed  at  Oxford  by  the  University  Press  in  1703-5,  and 
has  been  universally  recognised  as  a  monumental  work. 
It  was  preceded  in  1689  by  a  less  ambitious  but  useful 
work  on  a  kindred  subject,  '  An  Anglo-Saxon  and  Mceso- 
Gothic  Grammar.' 

Those  who  think  the  Nonjurors  were  narrow-minded 
bigots,  who  had  no  interests  beyond  their  own  community, 
could  not  do  better  than  read  Jeremy  Collier's  '  Essays 
upon  Moral  Subjects '  (1697)  and  his  '  Short  View  of  the 
Immorality  and  Profaneness  of  the  English  Stage  '  (1698), 
with  the  '  Defences,'  '  Vindications,'  &c,  of  it  which  fol- 
lowed.  He  will  find  that  throughout  them  all,  though 
Collier  is  always  the  priest,  jealous  for  the  privileges  of 
his  order  which  he  rated  very  highly,  he  is  priest  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  not  of  the  Nonjuring  body.  It  is 
dangerous  to  assert  a  negative,  but  I  can  remember  no 
single  passage  in  any  of  these  writings  which  betrays  the 
Nonjuror.  They  are  simply  the  works  of  a  religious, 
moral  man,  written  in  the  general  interests  of  religion 
and  morality.  It  is  a  striking  instance  of  the  way  in 
wliich  a  man  can  detach  himself  from  his  surroundings ; 
tor  they  were  written  just  when  Collier  was  in  the  very 
thick  of  the  troubles  into  wliich  his  absolution  of  Sir 
John  Perkins  on  the  scaffold  had  not  unnaturally  brought 


COLLIEE'S  «  SHOET  VIEW  OP  THE  STAGE  '     415 

him.  The  '  Essays  '  were  published  in  a  collected  form 
in  1697  (though  some  of  them  had  appeared  separately 
before  then),  and  were  on  such  general  subjects  as  '  Pride,' 
'  Clothes,'  '  Duelling,'  &c.  The  most  striking,  perhaps, 
is  that '  Upon  the  Office  of  a  Chaplain,'  which  is  a  noble 
vindication  of  that  much-abused  office,  and  acquires  an 
additional  significance  from  the  fact  that  Collier  had 
himself  acted  in  that  capacity. 

In  the  next  year  (1698)  appeared  his  first  attack  on  the 
drama,  '  A  Short  View  of  the  Immorality  and  Prof  aneness 
of  the  English  Stage,'  followed  by  numerous  pamphlets 
in  defence  of  his  views.  In  writing  these  Collier  showed 
an  amount  of  moral  courage  which  one  cannot  sufficiently 
admire.  It  was  not  so  much  that  he  must  have  known 
he  would  bring  down  to  bear  upon  him,  as  he  did,  the 
batteries  of  all  the  wits  ;  but  he  must  also  have  known 
that  he  would  be  thought  to  be  going  against  his  own 
party ;  and  it  requires  far  greater  moral  courage  to  offend 
friends  than  enemies.  For  a  Puritan  like  Prynne  to 
attack  the  stage  was  natural  enough ;  but  for  a  Royalist 
of  Eoyalists,  a  man  who  had  pinned  all  his  fortunes  on 
the  Stuart  cause,  to  do  so  seemed  like  a  Quixotic  going 
out  of  the  way  to  make  enemies.  But  it  was  not  so ; 
public  opinion  went  with  him,  simply  because  *  truth  was 
great  and  prevailed.'  Collier  was  by  far  the  most  effective 
assailant  of  the  stage,  but  two  other  Nonjurors,  Law  and 
Bedford,  followed  in  his  wake.  Dr.  Johnson,  who  was 
for  some  reason  rather  prejudiced  against  the  Nonjurors, 
does  full  justice  to  this  crusade  of  Collier : 

I  believe  with  no  other  motive  than  religious  zeal  and 
honest  indignation  .  .  .  and  with  all  his  powers  exalted  and 
invigorated  by  just  confidence  in  his  cause  ...  he  walked  out 
to  battle,  and  assailed  at  once  most  of  the  living  writers,  from 
Dryden  to  D'Urfey.  .  .  .  The  dispute  was  protracted  through 


416  THE  NONJURORS 

ten  years ;  but  at  last  Comedy  grew  more  modest :  and  Collier 
.  see  the  reward  of  his  labour  in  the  reformation  of  the 
theatre.1 

Under  the  head  of  '  Miscellaneous  Works  '  must  be 
placed  Hearne's  edition  of  '  The  Itinerary  of  John  Leland, 
the  Antiquary,'  published  in  nine  volumes  in  1710,  and 
of  the  '  Collectanea  '  in  six  volumes  in  1715,  and  it  must 
be  remembered  that  but  for  Hearne  these  works  of  the 
earliest  of  modern  English  antiquaries  would  probably 
never  have  seen  the  press ;  also  Thomas  Baker's  '  Re- 
flections on  Learning,'  the  work  by  which  the  name  of 
Baker  is  now  best  known,  though  it  is  certainly  not  the 
most  valuable  of  his  contributions  to  literature ;  his 
«  History  of  St.  John's  College,'  which  lay  in  manuscript 
for  many  years,  is,  even  without  the  later  additions  of 
Cole,  and  the  invaluable  annotations  of  Professor  J.  E.  B. 
Mayor,  much  more  useful ;  also  Edward  Holdsworth's 
Latin  poem,  '  Muscipula,'  written,  as  it  was  neatly  re- 
marked, '  with  the  purity  of  Virgil  and  the  pleasantry  of 
Lucian,'  and  his  •  Remarks  and  Dissertations  on  Virgil,' 
published  in  17(58  by  Joseph  Spence ;  also  Samuel  Jebb's 
edition  of  Roger  Bacon's  '  Opus  Majus,'  and  various 
classical,  historical,  and  biographical  works,  though  in 
these  last  three  departments  he  has  not  attained  a  per- 
manent lame;  and  the  medical  works  of  Paman  and  Sir 
Richard  Jebb. 

Bui  it  is  impossible  to  describe  in  detail  all  the  work 
done  by  Nonjurors  as  classical  scholars,  antiquaries, 
bibliophiles,  numismatists,  virtuosos,  and  cultivators  of 
the  fine  art  .  Benry  Dodwell,  Thomas  Hearne,  Thomas 
Smith,  Thomas  Baker,  Richard  Rawlinson,  Thomas 
Rawlinson,  Francis  Cherry,  Edward  Holdsworth,  Francis 
y.  nol  bo  mention  many  others,  were  all  men  of 
'  J  I   .         Ooi        <  '   i.  l'.'i   -'. 


CULTUEED  TASTES  OF  NONJUEOES  417 

refined  and  cultivated  tastes,  and  these  tastes  were  not 
wholly  unconnected  with  their  position  as  Nonjurors. 
The  same  reverence  for  antiquity  which  made  them  relish 
such  studies  led  them,  in  their  religion,  to  prefer  the  old 
order  of  things  to  the  new,  and  also  helped  to  attach 
them  to  the  old  dynasty  rather  than  the  new.  The  early 
Hanoverians  had  no  tastes  of  the  sort  themselves,  and 
discouraged  them  in  others.  The  Stuarts,  with  all  their 
faults,  were  not  wanting  in  this  respect.  They  may  have 
been  hopeless  as  rulers,  but  they  had  the  capacity  for 
appreciating  culture  of  various  kinds  which  their  successful 
rivals  never  had.  Hence  the  age  of  the  Stuarts,  of  which 
the  Nonjurors  were  survivals,  was  an  age  of  less  grossness 
than  that  which  is  rather  vaguely  called  the  Georgian 
era  ;  and  among  the  incidental  disasters  resulting  from 
the  Nonjuring  separation  must  be  reckoned  the  loss 
thereby  of  an  element  which  that  coarse  age  could  ill 
afford  to  dispense  with. 


E  E 


418  THE  NONJURORS 


CHAPTEK   X 

THE    NONJUKORS    IN    SCOTLAND 

The  history  of  the  Nonjurors  in  Scotland  is  almost  co- 
extensive with  the  history  of  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church 
for  about  a  hundred  years.  Happily,  however,  in  the 
present  chapter  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  undertake  the 
ambitious  task  of  writing  a  history  of  that  Church  from 
1689  to  1789  in  all  its  aspects ;  that  has  been  done,  and 
well  done,  by  various  Scotch  Churchmen  at  various  dates.1 
It  will  suffice  for  the  present  purpose  to  notice  the  Scotch 
Nonjurors  qua  Nonjurors,  ignoring  the  many  other 
phases  in  which  they  may  be  regarded. 

Both  the  Jacobite  and  the  Nonjuring  causes  appealed 
much  more  strongly  to  Scottish  than  to  English  Church 
people  for  several  reasons.  The  Stuarts  were  Scotchman, 
and  always  looked  upon  Scotland  as  their  native  country. 
It  was  only  natural  that  both  the  Old  and  the  Young 
Chevalier  should  make  Scotland,  not  England,  the  base 
of  their  operations  for  the  recovery  of  their  rights;  for 
they  knew  that  they  had  heartier  and  more  numerous 
supporters  among  their  own  kith  and  kin  than  among 
the  Southrons,  and  their  supporters  were,  with  very  few 

1  Bee,  ktfsr  alia,  A  al  History  of  Sootlcmd,  by  John  Skinner 

<17*H);   History  of  ih$  Scottish  Episcopal  Church,  Ac,  bj  John  Parker 

y  Of  the  Church  Of  Scotland.  Ac.  I.v  IhomM  St.  fh(  D 

lory  of  Scotland,  by  George  Grub  (1861),  the 

•I  fullest  of  all.     Befl  altO  Dean  Luckock's  The  Ohunh  in  Scotland 

pp.  8M  '.'-'. 


WHY  SCOTCHMEN  BECAME   NONJUBOKS     419 

exceptions,  Episcopalians.  Not  only  were  they  Episcopa- 
lians, as  distinguished  from  Presbyterians,  but  they  were 
Churchmen  of  a  rather  advanced  type.  When  a  small 
body,  holding  one  set  of  opinions,  is  settled  in  the  midst 
of  a  larger  body,  holding  a  different  set,  there  is  always 
a  tendency  in  the  smaller  to  emphasise  their  differences 
from  the  larger.  Thus  '  the  Protestant  Church '  in 
Ireland,  and  the  Huguenots  in  France,  being  in  the 
midst  of  a  Eoman  Catholic  population,  naturally  became 
'  Low,'  and  the  Scotch  Episcopalians,  being  in  the  midst 
of  a  Presbyterian  population,  naturally  became  '  High, ' 
and  would  on  that  account  sympathise  with  the  English 
Nonjurors,  who  were  very  distinctly  High  Churchmen. 
It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  Nonjurors  in 
England  and  the  Nonjurors  in  Scotland  were  one  body,  for 
they  were  quite  distinct  communities  ;  and  when  members 
of  the  one  took  part  in  the  affairs  of  the  other,  as  they 
frequently  did  on  both  sides,  they  were,  strictly  speaking, 
travelling  outside  their  own  province,  and  were  acting 
ultra  vires.  And,  once  more,  Scotland  being  farther 
removed  from  the  chief  scene  of  action  did  not  feel  so 
keenly  nor  anticipate  so  speedily  the  dangers  from  King 
James's  government  as  those  who  were  nearer  its  centre. 
William's  invasion  was  projected  and  talked  over  in 
England  some  time  before  it  was  heard  of  in  Scotland. 
It  was  not  until  a  week  or  two  before  it  took  place  that 
the  rumour  of  it  reached  the  Scotch ;  and  the  result  was 
consternation  on  one  side,  elation  on  the  other,  but 
surprise  on  both.  The  tidings  arrived  in  October  1688, 
and  the  Scotch  Episcopalians  seem  to  have  committed 
themselves  at  once.  The  University  of  St.  Andrews 
immediately  prepared  a  loyal  address  to  King  James, 
which  was  signed  by  the  archbishop  (Dr.  Arthur  Eoss)  as 
Chancellor,  all  the  Heads  of  colleges,  and  all  the  Professors, 


430  THE  NONJURORS 

testifying  '  their  adherence  to  the  Christian  principles 
of  loyalty  and  obedience  to  their  lawful  sovereign,  and 
dwelling  gratefully  on  the  constant  liberality  which  the 
Stuarts  had  shown  to  their  Church  and  University.' 1  The 
archbishop,  having  signed  the  address,  hurried  off  to 
Edinburgh,  where  he  found  the  bishops  assembled ;  and 
on  November  3  (two  days  before  William's  landing) 
1  a  loyal  and  affectionate  address ' 2  was  signed  by  twelve 
bishops,  in  which,  having  declared  that  they  had  been 
1  amazed  to  hear  of  an  invasion  from  Holland,'  they 
promised  the  King :  '  As  by  the  grace  of  God  we  shall 
preserve  in  ourselves  a  firm  and  unshaken  loyalty,  so  we 
shall  be  zealous  to  promote  in  all  your  subjects  an  in- 
temerable  and  steadfast  allegiance  to  your  Majesty,  as  an 
essential  part  of  their  religion,  and  of  the  glory  of  our 
holy  profession.' 3  Thus,  at  a  very  early  stage  in  the 
crisis,  the  Scotch  bishops  drew  the  sword  and  threw  away 
the  scabbard. 

On  the  other  side  the  extreme  left  of  the  Presbyterian 
party,  the  Cameronians,  or  '  hill-men,'  who  had  mainly 
concentrated  themselves  in  the  western  and  south-western 
counties,  without  waiting  to  see  what  form  of  ecclesiastical 
government  was  to  be  established,  took  the  law  into  their 
own  hands,  and  commenced  that  course  of  armed  inter- 
ference commonly  known  as  'rabbling  the  curates.'  The 
rabbled  clergy  in  the  diocese  of  Glasgow  deputed  their 
dean  to  go  to  London  with  a  petition  for  protection  to 
William,  who  issued  a  proclamation  for  keeping  the  peace 
in  Scotland,  but  the  rabblings  went  on  worse  than  ever. 

Meanwhile  a  more  important  deputation  was  being 
sent  to  London,  the  account  of  which  Bets  before  us  most 
vividly  tin-  attitude  which  the  majority  of  Scotch  Episco- 
palians assumed  in   regard  bo  the  Nonjnring  question. 

1  Stephen,  in.  .Mi.  •  ibid.  iii.  MS.  Skinner,  ii.  018-4. 


BISHOP  EOSE'S  MISSION  TO  LONDON        421 

When  they  heard  of  the  Prince's  landing  they  determined 
to  send  two  of  their  bishops  to  London  '  with  a  renewal 
of  their  allegiance  to  King  James,  and  to  wait  on  the 
English  bishops  for  advice  and  assistance  in  case  that 
any  unlucky  thing  might  possibly  happen  to  occur  with 
respect  to  the  Church.' l  The  two  selected  were  the 
Bishop  of  Edinburgh  (Dr.  Alexander  Eose)  and  the 
Bishop  of  Orkney  (Dr.  Andrew  Bruce),  but  the  latter  fell 
ill,  and  Bishop  Bose  set  forth  alone.  What  befell  him  in 
that  eventful  expedition  has  been  recorded  by  his  own  pen 
in  a  letter  written  at  Bishop  Archibald  Campbell's  request 
twenty-four  years  later  (1713).  He  left  Edinburgh  under 
the  impression  that  there  would  be  no  change  of  Govern- 
ment, and  it  was  under  that  impression  that  his  brother 
bishops  commissioned  him  to  act  for  them.  So  he  found 
himself  in  a  most  awkward  predicament,  for,  when  he 
reached  Northallerton,  on  his  way  southward,  he  heard 
that  the  Prince  of  Orange  had  assumed  the  government, 
and  that  James  had  fled.  This  altered  the  whole  aspect 
of  affairs,  and  he  hesitated  for  some  time  as  to  what  he 
should  do. 

But  [he  writes],  considering  the  various  contradictory  accounts 
I  had  all  along  the  road,  and  that  in  case  of  the  King's  retire- 
ment matters  would  be  much  more  dark  and  perplexed,  I 
resolved  to  go  on,  that  I  might  be  able  to  send  just  accounts  to 
my  brethren  from  time  to  time,  and  have  the  advice  of  the 
English  bishops  whom  I  never  doubted  to  find  unalterably  firm 
to  their  master's  interest. 

His  first  application  was  to  Archbishop  Bancroft,  whom 
he  had  known  before.  He  presented  his  commission,  and 
the  archbishop  was  sympathetic,  but  not  encouraging. 
'  Matters,'  he  said,  '  were  very  dark,  and  the  cloud  so 
thick  or  gross  that  they  could  not  see  through  it ;   the 

1  Lawson,  p.  39,  quoted  from  Bishop  Rose's  Letter  to  Bishop  A.  Campbell. 


422  THE   NONJURORS 

English  bishops  knew  not  well  what  to  do  for  themselves, 
far  less  what  advice  to  give  to  others.'  He  then  applied 
to  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  (Dr.  Lloyd),  another  acquaint- 
ance; but  that,  of  course,  was  of  no  avail,  for  Lloyd's 
own  sympathies  were  with  the  Kevolution.  Then  he  had 
recourse  to  the  Bishop  of  London  (Dr.  Compton),  begging 
him  to  '  use  his  influence  with  the  Prince  of  Orange  to 
protect  the  Episcopal  clergy  in  Scotland  ' ;  and  also  to  his 
own  countryman,  Bishop  Burnet,  for  the  same  purpose. 
The  latter  at  once  cut  him  short,  saying  that  ■  he  did  not 
meddle  in  Scots'  affairs  ' — a  somewhat  audacious  assertion 
on  the  part  of  one  who  was  the  most  meddlesome  of 
men.  But  Bishop  Compton  was  much  more  kind  and 
considerate,  and  advised  him  '  to  wait  on  the  Prince  and 
present  him  with  an  address  respecting  the  treatment  of 
the  clergy  in  Scotland.'  Several  Scottish  peers  also  gave 
him  the  same  advice. 

I  asked  [proceeds  Bishop  Rose]  whether  I  or  my  address 
would  meet  with  acceptance  or  success  if  it  did  not  compliment 
the  Prince  upon  his  descent  to  deliver  us  from  Popery  and 
slavery  ?  They  said  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary.  I 
told  them  that  I  neither  was  instructed  by  my  constituents  to 
do  so,  neither  had  I  myself  clearness  to  do  it,  and  that  in 
these  terms  I  neither  could  nor  would  visit  or  address  his 
Bighness. 

Matters  seemed  now  to  be  at  a  deadlock.  The  bishop 
had  several  interviews  with  Archbishop  Sancroft  and 
Dishop  Turner,  who,  of  course,  thoroughly  sympathised 
with  him,  but  could  give  him  no  help;  and  so,  finding 
that  nothing  more  could  be  done,  he  prepared  to  n't  urn 
bo  Scotland,  but  found  that  he  could  not  safely  do  so 
without  a  pass  from  the  Prinoe.  Ee  once  more  applied 
to  Bishop  Compton,  who,  though  he  had  no  sympathy 
with  Nonjuxing  principles,  seems  to  have  been  most  kind 


DELICATE  POSITION  OF  BISHOP  EOSE      423 

throughout ;  and  Compton  strove  to  procure  an  interview 
with  William  for  Bishop  Rose,  Sir  George  Mackenzie, 
and  other  friends  of  the  Scotch  Episcopate  on  the  subject 
of  the  persecuted  clergy.  William  replied  that  he  could 
not  admit  either  Episcopalians  or  Presbyterians  in  a  body, 
because  to  do  so  would  be  sure  to  give  offence  to  the  other 
party ;  he  could  not  allow  more  than  two  of  either  party 
at  a  time  to  speak  to  him  of  Scotch  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
Upon  this  Bishop  Compton  said  to  Bishop  Eose  : 

You  see,  my  Lord,  that  the  king  having  thrown  himself 
upon  the  water  must  keep  himself  a  swimming  with  one  hand. 
The  Presbyterians  have  joined  him  closely  and  offer  to  support 
him,  and  therefore  he  cannot  cast  them  off,  unless  he  could  see 
how  otherwise  he  can  be  served.  And  he  bids  me  tell  you,  that 
he  now  knows  the  state  of  Scotland  much  better  than  he  did 
when  he  was  in  Holland :  For  while  there,  he  was  made  to 
believe  that  Scotland  generally  all  over  was  Presbyterian  ;  but 
now  he  sees  that  the  great  body  of  nobility  and  gentry  are  for 
Episcopacy,  and  it  is  the  trading  and  inferior  sort  that  are  for 
Presbytery ;  therefore  he  bids  me  tell  you  that  if  you  will 
undertake  to  serve  him,  to  the  purpose  that  he  is  served  here  in 
England,  he  will  take  you  by  the  hand,  support  the  Church  and 
order,  and  throw  off  the  Presbyterians. 

Bishop  Rose  replied  : 

My  Lord,  I  cannot  but  humbly  thank  the  Prince  for  this 
frankness  and  offer  ;  but  withal  I  must  tell  your  Lordship  that 
when  I  came  from  Scotland  neither  my  brethren  nor  I  appre- 
hended any  such  revolution  as  I  have  now  seen  in  England  ; 
and  therefore  I  neither  was  nor  could  be  instructed  by  them 
what  answer  to  make  to  the  Prince's  offer :  And  therefore  what 
I  say  is  not  in  their  name,  but  only  my  own  private  opinion, 
which  is,  that  I  truly  think  they  will  not  serve  the  Prince  so  as 
he  is  served  in  England  ;  that  is,  as  I  take  it,  to  make  him 
their  king,  or  give  their  suffrages  for  his  being  king.  And 
though  as  to  this  matter  I  can  say  nothing  in  their  name,  and 
as  from  them,  yet  for  myself  I  must  say,  that  rather  than  do  so 
I  will  abandon  all  the  interest  that  either  I  have,  or  may  expect 
to  have  in  Britain. 


424  THE  NONJURORS 

As  Bishop  Compton  was  replying  William  passed  through 
the  room,  and  took  no  notice  of  the  bishops;  but 
Compton  procured  for  Rose  an  audience  on  the  next 
day,  at  which  William  said,  '  My  Lord,  are  you  going  for 
Scotland?'  'Yes,  sir/  replied  the  bishop,  'if  you  have 
any  commands  for  me.'  'I  hope,'  said  the  King,  ' you 
will  be  kind  to  me,  and  follow  the  example  of  England.' 
'  Sir,'  replied  the  bishop,  '  I  will  serve  you  so  far  as  law, 
reason,  or  conscience  shall  allow  me.'  William  instantly 
turned  in  silence  from  the  bishop,  who  retired  and  re- 
turned to  Scotland  re  mfectd. 

This  memorable  incident  has  been  described  at  some 
length  because  on  it  the  fate  of  the  Church  appears  to 
have  hung.  Bishop  Bose  has  been  severely  blamed  for 
haying  mismanaged  the  matter.  Episcopacy  might  have 
been  established  in  Scotland  if  he  had  been  the  man  to 
cope  with  the  crisis ;  he  himself  thinks  '  the  king  would 
probably  have  protected  them  if  they  had  come  into 
his  interest,'  and  the  Presbyterian  historian,  Dr.  C6ok, 
admits  that 

William  wished  to  continue  the  Episcopal  Church  as  the 
National  Establishment ;  he  thought  it  desirable  that  the  same 
form  of  Church  government  should  be  established  through  the 
w1k.1i'  of  Britain  ;  and  if  the  Episcopal  party  had  now  cordially 
joined  him,  and  consented  to  admit  modifications  of  Episcopacyi 
to  include  within  the  pale  of  the  Establishment  those  who 
otherwise  would  not  have  entered  it,  there  is  little  doubt  that 
he  would  have  earnestly  contended  for  the  continuance  of  the 
ohy.1 

r.ut   it  must  be  remembered  that  those  whom  Bishop 

■<  )'i<  jented  wire  all  une. unpromising  Jacobites,  and 
he  WOold  have  utterly  betrayed  them  if  he  had  acted 
otherwise  than  he  did. 

John   Skinner,   Who  lived    U01  very  far   from  the   time 
'  Quoted  bj  Lawson,  p.  88. 


FAILUKE   OF  BISHOP  KOSE'S  MISSION       425 

of  the  events  and  had  seen  both  sides,  having  been 
brought  up  as  a  Presbyterian  and  then  become  an 
Episcopalian  and  a  sufferer  in  the  cause  of  the  Church, 
was  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  conduct  of  the  bishops  in 
general  and  of  Bishop  Eose  in  particular. 

The  case  [he  writes]  of  the  Church  of  England  at  this 
period  of  confusion  (1691)  was  fully  as  disagreeable  as  our 
own,  if  not  more  so.  In  Scotland  the  established  Episcopacy 
was  struck  down  at  one  blow,  and  its  rival  Presbytery  set  up  in 
its  room,  without  offering  members  of  the  old  constitution  any 
conditions,  or  giving  them  time  to  deliberate  what  side  of  the 
political  question  to  espouse.  So  that  the  Scottish  bishops, 
being  all  involved  in  one  general  catastrophe,  and  not  being 
divided  by  any  insnaring  alternatives,  had  no  difficulty  to  main- 
tain the  Episcopal  cause,  and  to  support  the  interest  of  the 
Church  by  purely  ecclesiastical  arguments,  and  upon  her  own 
original  and  independent  bottom.  In  England  the  face  of  the 
old  constitution  was  preserved,  and  by  the  appointment  of  the 
new  legislature  Episcopacy  was  made  to  fight  against  itself. 
This  was  an  intricate  and  unwelcome  combat,  and  the  Bishops 
who  had  the  injured  side  to  defend,  being  reduced  to  the  neces- 
sity of  defending  one  form  of  Protestant  Episcopacy  against 
another,  were  many  times  obliged  to  fly  off  to  foreign  assistance 
and  bring  forward  arguments  which  were  in  good  measure 
extraneous  to  the  main  cause ;  while  the  Bishops  in  Scotland 
had  nothing  to  do  but  combat  their  adversaries  with  weapons 
which  every  Episcopal  Church  had  taken  out  of  the  storehouse 
of  pure  and  uncorrupted  antiquity,  before  political  discussions 
had  come  to  be  blended  with  Church  censures.  The  truth  of 
this  observation  will  appear  from  all  the  controversial  disputes 
of  those  days,  where  it  is  easy  to  see  that  many  of  the  weightiest 
objections  against  the  English  separations  do  not  affect  the 
Episcopacy  of  Scotland ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  every 
defence  that  the  ejected  succession  in  England  could  make  for 
themselves  is  applicable  to  the  Scottish  cause  with  equal  pro- 
priety and  force.1 

1  An  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland,  by  John  Skinner,  ii.  580-1. 
John  Skinner  was  minister  of  Longside,  in  Aberdeenshire,  for  no  less  than 
sixty-five  years  (1742-1807),  and  was  father  of  the  Bishop  of  Aberdeen, 
who  published  his  father's  Tlicological  Works,  with  a  biography  prefixed. 


42G  THE  NONJURORS 

The  writer  of  these  weighty  words  evidently  thought 
that  Establishment  might  be  purchased  at  too  dear  a  rate, 
and  by  no  means  regretted  that  Bishop  Kose's  visit  to 
England  had  been  a  failure.  And  one  can  well  see  what 
his  point  of  view  was.  The  complications  to  which  he 
referred  in  England  would  have  been  ten  times  greater 
in  Scotland.  The  gulf  between  the  Presbyterians  and 
Episcopalians  was  far  too  wide  to  be  bridged  over  by  any 
such  '  modifications  '  as  Dr.  Cook  suggests.  It  was  not 
only  the  oaths  that  blocked  the  way,  though  these  were 
to  many  an  insuperable  obstacle  ;  but  the  general  spirit 
and  tone  of  mind  of  the  Presbyterians,  who  formed 
the  majority,  though  by  no  means  so  large  a  majority  as 
was  represented,  made  any  sort  of  compromise  at  that 
time  an  impossibility.1  A  comprehension,  indeed,  was 
attempted  for  a  short  time,  but  it  was  a  melancholy 
failure.  Those  clergy  who  were  willing  to  take  the  oaths 
were  allowed  to  retain  their  livings  and  to  bear  a  part  in 
Church  government,2  and  for  a  while  there  was  the 

strange  sight  of  a  Protestant  National  Church  which  could 
strictly  be  called  neither  Presbyterian  nor  Episcopalian,  but  a 
heterogeneous  compound  of  two  jarring  denominations,  both  of 
tin-in  publicly  acknowledged  to  be  Ministers  of  the  Gospel, 
invested  with  the  pastoral  charge,  and  formally  confirmed  by 
the  then  legal  authority,  but  neither  of  them  in  full  terms  of 
communion,  nor  agreeing  in  many  points  of  worship.3 

But  all  the  bishops  and  a  great  majority  of  the 
clergy  held  aloof,  Buffered  quietly,  and  were  content  to 
i    i  in  e  their  ministry  so  far  as  they  were  allowed  to  do 

'  Be<    La*  ion,  p.  LOfi  r/  aeq.,  and  Skinner,  ii.  559  80.    As  one  roadn  0! 

What  was  said  and  done  in  tin-  Scotch  Parliament  and  the  General  As-nnhh  . 
it  n-ally  166001  as  if  the  clock   were  put  hack  fifty  years,  and  we  were  at  the 

thfl  firtt,  not  ol  the  second  half  of  the  I v\  enteenth  century. 

I   naofa  In  I  lie  dllgOSt  o!  the  Assembly,  which  soon  got  rid  of  them. 

Inner,  li  688  ■ 
innei .  ii.  B9L 


SCOTCH  NONJUEOES  UNDEE  QUEEN  ANNE      427 

so.  These  and  their  congregations  were  the  Scottish 
Nonjurors,  and  it  is  with  them,  and  them  alone,  that  the 
present  work  has  to  do.  Of  course  the  oracle  was  worked 
against  them  in  regard  to  the  oaths,  and  one  privilege 
after  another  was  taken  away  from  them ;  but,  like  their 
brethren  in  England,  they  submitted  patiently,  and  gave 
little  or  no  trouble  to  the  Government. 

The  accession  of  Queen  Anne  afforded  the  Nonjurors, 
at  least  indirectly,  some  relief.  The  new  Queen,  being 
herself  a  Churchwoman  by  conviction,  naturally  viewed 
them  with  more  favourable  eyes ;  and  they,  on  their  part, 
were  ready  to  accept  her  as  a  sort  of  regent  for  her  brother. 
In  1703  the  clergy  presented  to  her  an  address  beseech- 
ing her  to  allow  '  such  parishes  where  Episcopalians 
were  in  the  majority  to  be  held  by  Episcopally  ordained 
ministers ; '  they  reminded  her  that  '  the  petitioners  had 
been  violently  and  unjustly  turned  out  of  their  charges 
at  the  Eevolution,'  and  entreated  '  her  Majesty  to  com- 
passionate them  and  their  numerous  families,  who  were 
reduced  to  a  starving  condition  for  their  adhering  to  the 
true  primitive  and  apostolic  Church  of  which  her  Majesty 
was  a  member.'  The  appeal  was  not  without  effect.  No 
actual  grant  of  toleration  was  made  as  yet ;  but  the 
clergy  took  heart  of  grace ;  some  now  acknowledged  the 
Government  who  had  not  acknowledged  it  before ;  more 
numerous  and  regular  services  were  held  in  the  larger 
places,  at  which  the  Queen  was  prayed  for  by  name  ;  and 
though  the  Nonjurors — among  whom  were  all  the  sur- 
viving bishops — could  not  do  this,  they  tacitly  assumed 
that  they  might  with  safety  conduct  their  services  more 
openly  than  before ;  and  the  Queen  was  so  far  from 
being  offended  that  she  allowed  a  pension  out  of  the 
bishop's  rents  to  Bishop  Rose,  the  head  of  the  Nonjurors, 
which  was  paid  to  him  regularly  until  1716. 


428  THE  NONJURORS 

Matters  ran  smoothly  so  far  as  outward  opposition 
went  until  1707,  when  the  Nonjurors  received  another 
check.  1707  was  the  year  of  the  Union,1  a  project  which 
was  unpopular  among  all  classes  in  Scotland  ;  and  in 
order  to  conciliate  the  Presbyterians  to  the  hated  measure, 
orders  were  issued  to  shut  up  'all  Episcopal  meeting- 
houses without  distinction.'  It  was  a  cruel  order,  for 
those  who  suffered  from  it  were  not  in  the  least  to  blame  ; 
but,  true  to  their  principles,  they  quietly  submitted  ;  the 
1  meeting-houses  '  were  closed,  and  the  clergy  retired  with- 
out a  murmur  into  domestic  life,  confining  their  ministry 
to  private  offices. 

The  invasion  from  France  in  favour  of  the  Stuarts  in 
1708  increased  the  suspicions  against  the  Nonjurors  in 
Scotland  as  elsewhere  ;  and  hence  it  was  not  until  1712 
that  a  Toleration  Act  was  passed  in  the  now  United 
Parliament,  which  gave  the  Episcopalians  in  Scotland 
legal  protection,  and  not  merely  connivance.  But 
even  this  Act  did  not  cover  the  Nonjurors,  who  formed 
the  large  majority  of  the  Church  ;  for,  though  it  was 
described  generally  as  '  An  Act  to  prevent  the  disturbing 
those  of  the  Episcopal  Communion  in  the  exercise  of 
their  religious  worship,  and  in  the  use  of  the  Liturgy  of 
the  Church  of  England  ;  and  for  repealing  the  Act  of  the 
Parliament  of  Scotland  against  irregular  Baptisms  and 
Marriages'  (that  is,  the  Act  of  1G95),  it  was  carefully 
provided  that  before  any  clergyman  could  enjoy  the  benefit 
of  it  he  should  produce  his  Letters  of  Orders  before  a 
Justice  of  Peace  at  Quarter  Sessions,  and  subscribe  not 
only  the  oath  of  Allegiance,  but  also  those  of  Assurance2 

1   Tin-   Act  w.i      pfl     .,1  iii    L706,  and  [fl  dated    from  that  year;   but  it  did 

t  until  1707. 
3  The  A~  nuance  ran  :  '  I  do  assont,  acknowledge  and   declare   that  her 
M.ijc.ty    [|   the  only   lawful   ami   undoubted    Sovereign   as   well   (/<•  jure   as 

it  tiiu   went  beyond  the   [mple  oath  oi  silegianoe< 


SCOTCH  NONJUEOES  UNDEE  GEOEGE  I.      429 

and  Abjuration,  and  that  every  time  he  officiated  in  a 
protected  place  of  worship  he  must  pray  for  the  Queen, 
the  Princess  Sophia,  and  the  rest  of  the  Royal  Family — 
conditions  with  which  of  course  no  conscientious  Non- 
jurors could  comply.  It  afforded  them,  therefore,  no 
direct  relief;  on  the  contrary,  it  supplied  subsequently 
the  most  convenient  means  of  proceeding  against  them. 
Indirectly,  however,  the  general  spirit  of  leniency  towards 
the  Church  shown  in  this  Act,  and  in  the  Patronage  Act l 
which  followed,  encouraged  the  Nonjuring  as  well  as  the 
complying  clergy  to  resume  their  public  functions ;  and 
they  were  tacitly  permitted  to  do  so  during  the  remainder 
of  Queen  Anne's  reign. 

The  accession  of  George  I.  in  1714  produced  a  change 
of  feeling  even  before  the  rising  in  1715.  The  Scottish 
Nonjurors  had  always  abhorred  the  thought  of  the 
Hanoverian  Succession  from  the  time  of  the  Acb  of 
Settlement  in  1700 ;  and  the  proclamation  that  was 
issued,  as  soon  as  that  succession  became  an  accom- 
plished fact,  for  putting  the  laws  into  execution  against 
'  all  Papists,  Nonjurors,  and  disaffected  persons  '  confirmed 
their  abhorrence.  They  had  fondly  hoped  that,  after  the 
'  regency '  of  Queen  Anne,  her  brother  would  succeed — a 
hope  which  was  shared  by  many  Englishmen.  But  when 
this  hope  was  rudely  shattered  by  the  unopposed  accession 
of  King  George,  the  disappointment  was  more  bitter  in 
Scotland  than  it  was  in  England,  partly  because  the 
Stuart  claimant  was  himself  a  Scotchman  and  connected 
with  Scotland  by  many  ties,  partly  because  the  Scotch 
Episcopal  Church  suffered  more  severely  by  the  change 
than  her  English  sister  ;  for  in  the  former  a  large  majority, 
in  the  latter  only  a  small  minority,  were  Nonjurors.     It 

1  That   is   the  Act  to   restore   to  the  patrons  their  ancient  rights  of 
presenting  ministers  to  the  churches  vacant  in  Scotland. 


430  THE   NONJURORS 

is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  a  number  of  Scotch 
Nonjurors  showed  a  warm  and  active  sympathy  with  the 
insurgents  in  171 5  : 

Previously  [writes  Mr.  Grub]  it  cannot  be  said  that  the 
Church,  as  a  body,  had  openly  supported  the  House  of  Stuart. 
A  considerable  number  of  clergy  and  laity  had  taken  the  oaths, 
and  remained  firm  in  their  allegiance  to  William  and  Anne. 
And  though  the  opinions  of  the  Nonjurors  necessarily  implied 
a  belief  in  the  unlawfulness  of  the  Revolution  Settlement,  it 
did  not  follow  that  they  held  active  opposition  to  it  allowable. 
Now  it  was  different.  The  disappointment  of  their  hopes, 
ecclesiastical  and  political,  on  the  accession  of  George  I.,  and 
the  certainty  that  a  peaceful  restoration  of  the  ancient  line  was 
no  longer  possible,  united  almost  all  friends  of  the  hierarchy  in 
attachment  to  James.1 

Some  Nonjuring  clergy,  including  bishops,  openly  iden- 
tified themselves  with  the  rising,  and  when  the  catastrophe 
came  the  victors  were  not  disposed  to  temper  justice  with 
mercy  in  their  treatment  of  those  who  had  so  manifestly 
aided  the  vanquished  party.  In  1716  the  oaths  were 
everywhere  put  to  the  clergy,  and  the  strictest  orders 
were  given  to  them  to  pray  for  the  reigning  sovereign. 
The  result  was  a  great  increase  in  the  number  of  avowed 
Nonjurors,  who  were  certainly  treated  with  great  severity. 
There  was  no  need  of  new  laws  to  proceed  against  them ; 
for,  oddly  enough,  the  very  Act  which  had  been  passed 
for  the  relief  of  the  Episcopalians  in  17T2  was  quite 
sufficient  to  cover  the  ejection  of  many  of  them  in  L716, 
requiring,  as  it  did,  the  oaths  to  be  taken  and  the  ruling 
powers  to  be  prayed  for  by  name.  All  that  had  to  be 
done  was  to  enforce  it  rigorously,  and  not  to  wink  at  the 
evasions  of  it  which  had  been  frequent  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Ann.-.  Accordingly,  on  May  21  the  King  wrote 
to  the  Lord  i  Justiciary  that  he  heard  there  were  meeting- 

'   •'  ry  Of  Scotland,  by  George  Grub,  iii.  878. 


LAWS  AGAINST  SCOTCH  NONJUEOES         431 

houses  in  Edinburgh  and  other  parts  of  Scotland  where 
divine  service  was  performed  without  praying  for  himself 
and  the  Eoyal  Family,  and  requiring  them  to  give  strict 
orders  for  shutting  up  such  meeting-houses  and  proceed- 
ing against  the  offenders.1  The  judges  replied  that  they 
would  order  prosecutions  against  such  offenders,  but 
were  '  humbly  of  opinion  that  they  could  not  shut  up 
meeting-houses  till  after  trial  and  conviction  by  due 
course  of  law.' 2  It  was,  however,  easy  enough  to  make 
out  a  case  against  the  clergy.  The  Indemnity  Act  of 
1717-8  gave  them  a  little  relief,  and  they  were  again 
permitted  to  carry  on  their  functions  publicly.  But  in 
1719  a  severe  law  was  enacted  which  seemed  likely  to 
render  their  case  more  hopeless  than  ever.  Its  avowed 
object  was  '  to  make  more  effectual  the  laws  appointing 
oaths  for  the  security  of  the  government  to  be  taken  by 
ministers  of  churches  and  meeting-houses  within  Scotland.' 
It  provided  that 

every  episcopal  minister  performing  any  divine  service  without 
having  taken  the  oaths  in  the  terms  of  Queen  Anne's  Tolera- 
tion, and  praying  for  the  King  and  royal  family,  is  to  suffer  six 
months'  imprisonment,  and  have  his  meeting-house  shut  up 
for  six  months ;  and  every  house  where  nine  or  more  persons, 
besides  the  family,  are  present  at  divine  service  is  declared  to 
be  a  meeting-house  within  the  meaning  of  the  Act.3 

But,  strange  to  say,  the  very  year  of  the  passing  of  this 
rigorous  Act  is  also  the  year  from  which  is  dated  the 
commencement  of  much  quieter  times  for  the  Church. 
For  the  next  twenty-seven  years — that  is,  from  1719  to 
1746 — she  enjoyed  an  outward  peace  and  prosperity  such 
as  she  had  never  enjoyed  since  the  Eevolution,  and  which 

1  History  of  the  Scottish  Episcopal  Church,  by  John  Parker  Lawson, 
pp. 218-9. 

2  History  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  by  Thomas  Stephen,  iii.  127. 

3  Skinner,  ii.  620. 


482  THE  NONJURORS 

she  was  not  to  enjoy  again  until  nearly  half  a  century 
after  the  last  Jacobite  rising  of  1745.  The  explanation 
may  be  found  partly  in  the  fact  that  the  alarm  about 
1  the  Pretender '  gradually  subsided,  and  partly  in  the 
quiet  and  inoffensive  behaviour  of  the  Church  itself, 
which  showed  that  it  was  more  interested  in  ecclesiastical 
than  in  political  affairs,  and  that  it  was  not  likely  to  be 
seriously  dangerous  to  the  ruling  powrers.  Hence,  though 
the  Act  of  1719  remained  on  the  Statute  Book,  it  was  not 
severely  enforced,  and  no  future  measures  were  taken 
which  need  here  be  noticed  until  we  come  to  the  famous 
''45.'  We  may  now,  therefore,  turn  to  the  internal 
history  of  the  Scotch  Nonjurors. 


From  1G89  to  17*20  a.d.,  amidst  all  the  troubles  they 
suffered  from  without,  the  Scotch  Nonjurors  enjoyed 
perfect  peace  and  harmony  among  themselves.  Perhaps 
the  very  fact  that  they  had  so  many  and  so  strong 
enemies  outside  the  fold  drew  them  closer  together  ;  they 
could  not  afford  the  luxury  of  internal  disputes  under 
such  circumstances.  But  they  were  also  largely  indebted 
for  their  internal  peace  to  the  good  judgment,  reasonable- 
ness, and  administrative  ability  of  Alexander  liose  (1G47- 
17-20),  Bishop  of  Edinburgh,  whose  futile  mission  to 
London  in  1G89  has  been  already  described.  His  conduct 
on  that  occasion  has  been  blamed,  and  so  also  has  his 
I  administration  of  the  Church  ;  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  has  been  most  enthusiastically  praised,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  set'  tin'  reason  of  the  differences  in  the  estimates 
of  tins  very  prominent  man:  what  some  would  call  wise 
caution  and  prodence  in  him  others  would  oaH  timidity; 

find,  on    the   other   hand,  what  some   would   call  firmness 


BISHOP  EOSE  AS  A  LEADEE  433 

others  would   term  obstinacy.     But  let  us  turn  to  facts, 
from  which  the  reader  may  form  his  own  estimate. 

In  1704  Arthur  Eoss,  '  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews  and 
Primate  of  the  Church  in  Scotland,'  died ;  the  arch- 
bishopric was  not  filled  up,  but  his  position  as  primate 
was  more  than  filled  by  his  nephew  Alexander,  the  son 
of  his  elder  brother.  Koss  and  Kose  are  the  same  name  ; 
and  the  latter  was  always  called  Bishop  Rose,  not  Bishop 
Eoss.  Perhaps  this  was  in  order  to  distinguish  him  from 
his  uncle ;  but  the  change  has  rather  tended  to  produce 
confusion.  He  was  known  to  the  end  as  Bishop  of 
Edinburgh ;  but  he  also  describes  himself  in  an  official 
document  as  '  Vicar-General  of  St.  Andrews.' l  In  the 
language  of  Mr.  Grub, 

he  was  not  only  Primate  and  Metropolitan,  but,  so  far  as  juris- 
diction was  concerned,  Bishop  of  the  whole  Church — Episcopus 
Scotorum.  The  influence  which  his  station  gave  him  was 
increased  by  his  ability  and  virtues  ;  and  in  his  later  years,  he 
had  an  ecclesiastical  authority  in  his  own  communion,  unlike 
anything  that  had  been  known  in  Scotland  since  the  time  of 
the  first  successors  of  S.  Columba.2 

His  personal  qualifications  were  those  which  were  most 
needed  in  a  leader  of  men  who  were  in  the  position  of  the 
Scotch  Nonjurors.  Such  men  would  be  sorely  tempted 
to  sink  the  ecclesiastic  in  the  politician,  to  adopt  wild 
and  extravagant  notions  in  sheer  reaction  from  their 
surroundings,  and  to  become  bigoted  and  narrow-minded. 
But  their  leader,  though  an  uncompromising  Jacobite, 
never  forgot  that  he  was  the  clergyman  first  and  foremost, 
and  the  politician  only  in  quite  the  second  place.  Bishop 
Eose's  name  never  occurs  in  connection  with  any  of  the 

1  '  Sedis  Sancti  Andres  nunc  vacantis  vicarii,'  is  his  description  of  him- 
self in  the  deed  of  Bishop  Sage's  consecration. 

2  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland,  by  George  Grub,  iii.  352. 


434  THE  NONJURORS 

risings,  actual  or  projected,  in  favour  of  the  Stuarts  ; 
he  was  always  calm  and  collected,  cautious  and  sober  in 
his  judgments,  and  very  conciliatory,  without  being  in  the 
least  degree  a  trimmer.  In  1710,  when  there  appeared 
likely  to  be  a  rapprochement  between  the  Churches  of 
England  and  Scotland  under  the  fostering  care  of  Queen 
Anne,  he  received  a  letter  from  Oxford  asking  ■  whether 
he  and  the  rest  of  the  Scotch  bishops  were  in  communion, 
as  matters  now  stood,  with  the  Established  Church  of 
England  and  her  bishops  ?  '  Now,  this  was  a  very  deli- 
cate question,  and  an  injudicious  answer  to  it  might  easily 
have  dashed  the  vessel  of  which  Bishop  Rose  was  the 
helmsman  against  either  Scylla  or  Charybdis.  On  the 
one  hand,  it  would  certainly  not  be  wise  for  the  weak  and 
suffering  Church  in  Scotland  to  reject  any  overtures  which 
she  could  conscientiously  accept  from  her  more  powerful 
sister  across  the  border.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be 
worse  than  unwise  to  commit  her  to  principles  and  courses 
of  action  which  she  would  be  quite  sure,  sooner  or  later, 
to  repudiate  ;  for,  though  she  was  not  quite  in  the  same 
position  as  the  Nonjuring  •  remnant '  in  England,  still 
less  was  she  in  full  sympathy  with  what  was  called  '  the 
Revolution  Church.'  Bishop  Rose,  however,  steered  safely 
between  the  two  rocks ;  his  answer  is  a  model  of  courtesy 
and  caution.    Having  touched  gently  the  political  question, 

I  know  [he  wrote]  there  has  been  a  division  among  members 
of  the  Church  of  England  on  that  head.  The  controversy  is 
md  national,  and  our  circumstances  among  ourselves  not 
affording  such  difficulties,  the  most  of  us,  perchance,  have  not 
so  carefully  examined  that  matter,  and  want  needful  help  to  be 
instructed  fully  in  it ; 

be    cannot    give    his    own    BOnse    without    consulting   his 

bri  thivn.1 

1  Bet  Btophan'i  History  of  the  Churd  to.  .".7. 


BISHOP  EOSE'S  CONNECTION  WITH  ENGLAND  435 

Again,  when  the  '  Usages  controversy  '  broke  out  in 
England,  some  of  the  English  Nonjurors  strove  to  involve 
the  Scotch  Nonjurors  in  it ;  but  Bishop  Bose  kept  them 
out  of  the  snare,  into  which  they  fell  immediately  after 
his  death.  He  himself  had  strong  opinions  on  the  subject, 
and  they  were,  more  or  less,  on  the  side  of  the  Usagers  ; 
but  he  saw  that  f or-  his  own  Church  the  question  must  be 
settled  on  its  own  merits,  and  must  not  be  complicated  by 
English  difficulties  which  had  no  existence  on  the  Scotch 
side  of  the  border. 

On  the  other  hand,  Bishop  Kose  was  more  in  touch 
than  his  brethren  with  eminent  Churchmen,  who  were 
not  Nonjurors,  on  the  English  side.  He  kept  up  a  cor- 
respondence with  John  Sharp,  Archbishop  of  York,  and 
Henry  Compton,  Bishop  of  London,  both  of  them  his  old 
friends.  The  former  was  a  firm  and  powerful  friend  at 
Court  of  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church ; *  the  latter  had, 
as  we  have  seen,  backed  Bose  up  in  his  attempt  in  1689, 
and  '  always  retained  a  particular  esteem  for  him ; ' 2  and  it 
was  through  Bose's  influence  that  the  English  Liturgy 
began  to  be  used  in  Aberdeen,  St.  Andrews,  and  other 
places.3  This  connection  with  men  in  England,  who  did 
not  agree  with  him  on  all  points,  enabled  him  to  realise 
that  most  questions  might  be  viewed  from  another  stand- 
point than  his  own,  and  served  to  dispel  any  narrowness 
which  the  peculiar  position  of  the  Scotch  Nonjurors  might 
have  a  tendency  to  foster. 

On  the  other  hand,  his  great  influence  naturally 
created  alarm  in  the  minds  of  those  Englishmen  who  were 
most  hostile  to  Nonjuring  principles.  There  is  a  curious 
letter  from  Bishop  Nicolson,  of  Carlisle,  to  Archbishop 
Wake  which  illustrates  this.     Bishop  Nicolson's  alarm  at 

1  See  Life  of  Archbishop  John  Sharp,  by  his  Son,  ii.  63,  and  passim. 

2  Stephen,  iv.  57.  3  Skinner,  ii.  605. 

ft  2 


436  THE  NONJURORS 

the  spread  of  Nonjuring  principles  in  London  has  been 
already  noticed.1  But  as  bishop  of  a  border  diocese  he 
would  naturally  be  still  more  alarmed  at  their  spread  in 
the  Lowlands  of  Scotland.  So  he  appears  to  have  sent 
his  chaplain  on  a  sort  of  reconnoitring  expedition,  and 
on  his  return  wrote  to  the  English  Primate  in  1710 : 
'  The  greatest  number  of  the  Episcopalians  are  under  the 
direction  and  influence  of  the  exauctorate  Bishop  of 
Edinburgh,  who  is  entirely  in  the  interest  of  the  Pre- 
tender, and  will  allow  none  of  his  followers  to  pray  for 
the  Queen,  though  himself  owns  her  title  in  the  receipts 
he  gives  for  his  pension,'  &c. 

Bishop  Kose  was  in  a  peculiar  position.  On  the  death 
of  the  last  Archbishop  of  Glasgow,  Dr.  Arthur  Koss,  in 
1704,  there  were  only  five  bishops  surviving,  and  it  was 
thought  desirable  to  consecrate  others  in  order  to  prevent 
the  possibility  of  the  succession  dying  out.  But  here  a 
difficulty  occurred.  The  Scotch  Nonjurors,  like  their 
brethren  in  England,  were  most  anxious  to  do  everything 
in  so  important  a  matter  in  a  constitutional  way,  and  they 
thought  that  a  bishop  with  full  powers  could  not  be 
constitutionally  appointed  without  a  nomination  from  the 
sovereign,  and  a  conga  cVclirc  issued  by  him  to  the  dean 
and  chapter  of  the  diocese  to  elect  the  nominee.  But 
then  there  was  neither  sovereign,  nor  dean,  nor  chapter 
available.  Hence  arose  that  curious  and  unchnrchlike 
plan  of  appointing  'bishops  at  large,'  which  afterwards 
caused  great  confusion  and  dissension  in  the  Church.  It 
was  agreed  that  '  during  bhe  life  of  any  of  the  old  bishops 
lyernmenl  of  the  Church  should  remain  entirely  in 
their  bands,  and  that  the  newly  consecrated  should  be 
wiili  no  diocesan  power,  bnt  merely  keep  up  the 
order,  and  give  their  counsel  and  concurrence  when  called 
'  Ek  e  i .';  no,  p.  28S< 


'BISHOPS  AT  LAEGE'— JOHN   SAGE  437 

for.'1  This  arrangement  contributed  greatly  to  the 
dominant  position  of  Bishop  Eose,  for  he  was  the  last 
survivor  of  the  old  bishops,  and  was  therefore  associated 
with  bishops  who  had  no  episcopal  jurisdiction.  The 
first  two  who  were  selected  for  this  shadowy  honour,  and 
were  co-opted  by  the  bishops  themselves  into  their  body, 
were  John  Fullarton  and  John  Sage,  who,  on  St.  Paul's 
Day  1705,  were  consecrated  privately  at  Edinburgh  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Glasgow  (John  Paterson),  the  Bishop  of 
Edinburgh  (Alexander  Hose),  and  the  Bishop  of  Dunblane 
(Eobert  Douglas). 

Of  Bishop  Fullarton  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  more 
than  that  he  was  an  eminently  respectable  prelate,  and 
that  he  became,  in  1720,  a  not  unworthy  successor,  even 
of  Kose,  as  Bishop  of  Edinburgh  and  Primus,  though  he 
was  not  granted  the  vicarious  powers  which  Bose  had 
exercised  as  vicar-general  in  the  province  of  St. 
Andrews  ; 2  but  the  bishop  consecrated  with  him  requires 
a  more  detailed  notice. 

John  Sage  (1652-1711)  may  be  regarded  as  a  sort  of 
protege  of  Bishop  Kose,  though  he  far  surpassed  his 
patron  in  literary  eminence.  He  was  of  an  old  Boyalist 
stock,  his  father  having  been  a  captain  in  the  Koyal  army 
during  the  Civil  War,  and  he  was  faithful  to  the  family 
traditions.  Having  graduated  at  St.  Andrews,  he  acted 
for  some  time  as  a  parish  schoolmaster,  and  then  became 
tutor  and  chaplain  in  the  family  of  James  Drummond,  in 
Perthshire.  While  residing  with  his  pupils  at  Perth  he 
made  the  acquaintance  of  Alexander  Bose,  who  was  at 
that  time  a  minister  in  the  Old  Church  of  that  city.  In 
1683  Bose  removed  to  Glasgow,  where  Sage  visited  him 
in  1684.  Bose  introduced  him  to  his  uncle,  then  Arch- 
bishop of  Glasgow,  who  ordained  him  in  1685,  and  insti- 

1  Skinner,  ii.  602-3.  2  Lawson,  p.  224. 


438  THE   NONJURORS 

tuted  him  to  a  charge  in  Glasgow,  where,  it  is  said, 
he  'was  universally  respected.'1  This  was,  perhaps,  the 
reason  why  he  was  less  severely  treated  than  most  of  the 
1  rabbled '  clergy  in  that  city  and  diocese.  He  suffered, 
however,  quite  enough  for  conscience'  sake ;  he  was 
driven  from  the  city  by  the  Cameronians,  and  had  to 
retire  to  Edinburgh.  He  was  also  prevented  from 
accepting  another  favour  from  his  kind  friend,  the  arch- 
bishop, who  in  1688  nominated  him  to  the  divinity  chair 
at  St.  Andrews,  a  post  for  which  he  was  eminently 
qualified.  He  remained  quietly  at  Edinburgh  for  some 
years,  but  not  in  idleness,  for  he  was  very  busy  with  his 
pen,  and  appears  also  to  have  taken  part  in  Nonjuring 
services,  for  in  1693  he  was  '  banished  from  Edinburgh 
by  the  Privy  Council  for  officiating  as  a  Nonjuror.'  He 
then  found  refuge  in  the  houses  of  several  Jacobite  gentry 
until  his  consecration  in  1705.  He  was  not  allowed, 
however,  to  do  much  work  as  a  bishop,  for  in  1706  he 
was  stricken  with  paralysis,  from  which  he  never  fully 
recovered.  He  spent  a  year  in  London  and  then  returned 
to  Edinburgh,  where  he  died,  June  7,  1711.  Sage 
rendered  great  service  to  his  Church  in  a  direction  in 
which  it  was  needed.  Although  the  Scotch  Nonjurors 
were,  as  a  body,  men  of  culture,  and  some  of  them  of 
intellectual  eminence,  they  were  not  so  productive  of 
literary  work  as  their  English  brethren.  But  Sage  was 
an  exception.  To  his  powerful  pen  we  owe  some  of  the 
most  racy  and  vivid  sketches  of  the  sufferings  of  the 
Scotch  clergy,  and  some  of  the  most  weighty  vindications 
o!  their  Church  principles  which  we  possess.  Indeed, 
almost  all  his  writings,  which  are  fairly  numerous,  are, 
directly  or  indirectly ,  concerned  with  the  Scotch  Episcopal 
Church.  Perhftps  the  best  known  and  most  valuable  is 
1  Law-soii,  p.  Is I. 


JOHN  FALCONEE  439 

'  The  Principles  of  the  Cyprianic  Age '  (1695),  for  it  has 
more  general  interest  than  his  writings  on  the  contro- 
versies of  his  own  day  in  Scotland  have.  Without  being 
abusive,  he  is  certainly  a  severe  writer,  and  one  can  well 
understand  how  he  would  die  '  lamented  by  his  friends 
and  feared  by  his  adversaries.' 1  His  biography  has  been 
written  by  another  Scotch  bishop,  John  Gillan,  of  Dun- 
blane, himself  a  man  of  great  learning,  and  his  works 
have  been  published  in  three  volumes,  with  a  memoir 
prefixed,  by  the  Spottiswoode  Society. 

The  course  of  appointing  bishops  without  sees  was 
continued,  and  in  1709  John  Falconer  and  Henry  Christie 
were  consecrated  by  Bishops  Kose,  Douglas,  and  Sage  on 
those  terms.  The  latter  does  not  require  any  particular 
notice,  but  the  former  does. 

John  Falconer  (d.  1723)  has  been  well  described  as 
'  not  only  a  man  of  great  piety  and  prudence,  but  likewise 
a  consummate  divine,  and  deeply  versed  in  the  doctrines 
and  rites  of  the  Primitive  Church,  which,  both  by  example 
and  argument,  he  studied  to  revive  and  bring  again  into 
practice  in  the  softest  and  most  inoffensive  manner 
possible.' 2  All  his  conduct  answers  to  this  description. 
The  trusted  friend  of  Bishop  Eose,  who  pressed  him  '  to 
take  the  burden  of  the  Episcopate,'  he  was  more  dis- 
tinctly, or  perhaps,  one  should  say,  more  exclusively,  the 
Churchman  than  Eose  was.  Though  the  most  modest 
and  gentle  of  men,  he  knew  exactly  what  he  meant,  and 
pressed  his  point,  generally  with  success ;  perhaps  his 
social  influence,  for  he  was  connected  by  both  birth  and 
marriage  with  the  highest  families,  helped  him.  It  was 
Bishop  Falconer  who,  more  than  any  other,  was  instru- 
mental in  restoring  the  apostolic  rite  of  confirmation, 
which,  strange  to  say,  had  fallen  into  abeyance  in  the 
1  Lawson,  p.  185.  -  Quoted  by  Lawson,  p.  189. 


440  THE   NONJUKOKS 

Scotch  Church;  Bishop  Falconer,  who  was  foremost  in 
opposing  the  novel  plan  of  consecrating  bishops  merely 
to  keep  up  the  succession,  without  any  diocesan  juris- 
diction. Though  a  Nonjuror  and  a  Jacobite,  he  resisted 
the  too  successful  attempts  which  were  made  to  use  the 
Church  merely  as  an  instrument  for  restoring  the  exiled 
family;  and  he  protested  against  his  brother  clergy's 
opposition  to  the  revival  of  '  obsolete  usages  '  :  he  thought 
they  were  sanctioned  by  the  Primitive  Church,  and  that 
their  restoration  was  '  most  desirable.'  He  carried  all 
these  points,  and  that  without  giving  offence  to  any.1 

In  1711  another  consecration  of  a  bishop  at  large  took 
place — viz.  that  of  Archibald  Campbell,  whose  magnum 
opus  has  been  already  noticed  in  the  chapter  on  the 
general  literature  of  the  Nonjurors.2  In  fact,  one  scarcely 
knows  whether  to  place  Campbell  among  the  English  or 
the  Scotch  Nonjurors.  On  the  one  hand,  he  was  a  Scotch- 
man by  birth  and  education ;  he  received  Holy  Orders  in 
the  Scotch  Church,  and  was  consecrated  a  bishop  in  it 
at  Dundee  on  the  Feast  of  St.  Bartholomew,  1711,  by 
Bishops  Bose,  Douglas,  and  Falconer.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  lived  almost  entirely  in  London,  not  only  before, 
but  after,  his  consecration,  and  even  after  he  was  elected 
in  1721  a  diocesan  bishop  by  the  clergy  of  Aberdeen. 
Indeed,  it  is  said  that  he  never  once  visited  his  diocese, 
except  vicariously,  through  his  friend  and  'vicar,' 
Gadderar  ; 3  and  he  died  in  London  in   1744.     He  was 

1  A  in"  I  Latere  ting  series  of  articles  entitled  'Bishop  John  Falconer 
and  his  Friends  '  appeared  in  the  Scottish  EocUaicutical  Journal,  vols.  ii. 
ami  iii.  (1856).  u  is  an  open  secret  that  these  articles  were  written  by  the 
late  (tenon  William  Bright,  l  am  indebted  to  the  present  Bishop  <>f 
Edinburgh  (Dr.  Dowden)  I'm-  directing  mj  attention  to  them.  Bishop 
Falcon  i  name  i    in  erted  to  distinguish  him  from    William 

falconer,  who  •  held  the  highest  office  In  the  Dpi  oopal  Church  of  Bootland 

for  forty  three  yean  '—that  is,  from  1741  to  1784. 

B(  i    i'    ni2   i.  '  Btephenj  i\.  L66. 


AECHIBALD  CAMPBELL— JAMES  GADDEEAE  441 

far  more  intimately  associated  with  the  English  than 
with  the  Scotch  Nonjurors ;  he  helped  to  consecrate  four 
of  their  regular  bishops,  and  started,  as  we  have  seen,  an 
•irregular  line  of  his  own — still  in  England.  But  he  did 
not  forget  his  nationality,  and  it  is  said  that  one  of  the 
reasons  why  he  made  England  his  permanent  home  was 
that  in  that  richer  country  he  could  better  obtain  pecu- 
niary help  for  his  own  poor,  distressed  Church,  in  which 
charitable  work  he  was  not  a  little  aided  by  the  fact  that 
he  was  the  scion  of  a  noble  family  on  both  sides.  And 
this  leads  one  to  ask,  '  What  was  he  doing  in  that  Galley, 
full  of  Jacobites  and  Nonjurors,  at  all  ?  '  For  his  father 
was  Lord  Niel  Campbell,  a  son  of  that  Marquis  of  Argyll 
who  was  executed  under  a  Stuart  in  1661 ;  and  his  mother 
(nee  Lady  Vere  Ker)  was  sister  of  that  Earl  of  Lothian 
who  held  high  office  under  William  III.  after  the  Eevolu- 
tion.  Dr.  Johnson  tells  us  that  he  learnt  abroad  to  '  keep 
better  company'  than  the  Whigs,  with  whom  he  had 
been  brought  up,  referring  to  the  fact  that  he  made  his 
escape  to  Surinam  after  the  failure  of  the  Monmouth 
rebellion,  in  which  he  had  taken  part.  It  is  a  question 
into  which  it  would  be  foreign  to  this  work  to  enter  in 
detail ;  it  is  enough  to  say  that  for  the  greater  part  of  his 
long  life  he  was  a  strong  Jacobite  and  Nonjuror.1 

With  the  name  of  Archibald  Campbell  one  naturally 
associates  that  of  James  Gadderar  (1655-1733),  for,  if 
such  an  expression  may  be  used  about  dignified  prelates, 
the  two  ran  in  couples,  and  both  formed  a  sort  of 
connecting  link  between  the  English  and  the  Scotch 
Nonjurors.  Gadderar  was  one  of  the  'rabbled'  clergy 
in  1688.  Then  he  settled  in  London,  and  resided  there 
for  many  years.  In  1703  he  published  a  translation  of 
the  Latin  work  of  the  famous  lawyer,  Sir  Thomas  Craig, 
1  See  Lockhart  Papers,  ii.  99-102. 


442  THE  NONJURORS 

'  Treatise  on  the  Eight  of  James  VI.  to  the  Succession  to 
the  English  Crown,'  written  about  a  hundred  years  before, 
but  not  published.  This  formed  a  convenient  peg  on 
which  he  might  hang  his  Jacobite  opinions,  which  he 
accordingly  did  in  the  Preface  to  his  translation,  besides 
leaving  his  readers  to  draw  the  obvious  inference  in 
reference  to  James's  great-grandson  from  the  work  itself. 
It  was  by  the  express  desire  of  Bishop  Eose  that  he  was 
consecrated  a  bishop  at  large  in  1712.  The  consecration 
took  place  in  London,  and  the  consecrators  were  Bishops 
Hickes,  Campbell,  and  Falconer.  This  was  the  only 
instance  of  an  English  Nonjuror  helping  to  consecrate 
a  Scotch  bishop,  the  exception  being  probably  made  on 
account  of  the  intimacy  which  subsisted  between  Hickes 
and  Gadderar.  On  the  other  side  Scotch  Nonjurors  con- 
stantly helped  to  consecrate  English  Nonjuring  bishops, 
and  Gadderar  himself  took  part  in  three  such  consecra- 
tions in  1716.  Gadderar,  like  Campbell,  took  a  leading 
part  in  the  correspondence  between  the  Nonjurors  and 
the  Eastern  Church,  an  account  of  which  will  be  given  in 
the  next  chapter  ;  in  this  correspondence  he  signs  himself 
'  Jacobus,  Scoto-Britannia)  Episcopus.'  When  Campbell 
was  elected  diocesan  bishop  of  Aberdeen  in  1721  he  com- 
missioned Gadderar  to  act  as  his  'vicar,'  and  in  1725  he 
resigned  his  see  by  a  formal  deed  in  favour  of  Gadderar, 
who  was  also  elected  in  the  same  year  by  the  clergy  of 
the  diocese  of  Moray  to  he  their  ordinary.  Gadderar 
nded  both  dioceses,  which  were  well  within  the  compass 
of  one  man's  work,  with  great  vigour  and  success.  He 
trong  in:. ii,  and  Left  a  permanent  mark  upon  the 
Church,  John  Skinner,  who  was  a  working  clergyman 
in  Aberdeenshire  for  eixty-five  years,  wrote  in  L788  (that 
is,  fifty-fivi  bfter  Gadderar's  death):   'Of  him   I 

Deed    ;tv  oothing,  us  he  lias  left  such   a   precious   memory 


USAGES   CONTEOVEESY  IN  SCOTLAND       443 

behind  him  in  our  Church,  especially  in  the  diocese  of 
Aberdeen,  of  which  he  long  had  the  inspection.' *  Another 
writer  describes  him  as  '  the  stern  and  fearless  Bishop  of 
Aberdeen  ' ; 2  and  well  it  was  for  the  Church  that  he  icas 
stern  and  fearless,  as  the  general  history  of  the  Scotch 
Nonjurors  will  show. 

That  history  is  unfortunately  for  some  years  a  history 
of  internal  disputes.  The  apple  of  discord  was  thrown 
among  the  Scotch  Nonjurors  by  their  English  brethren 
in  1718.  It  will  be  remembered  that  that  was  the  year 
in  which  the  English  Nonjurors  were  divided  into  two 
separate  Communions  (for  a  time)  on  the  subject  of  the 
Usages.  It  was  agreed  on  both  sides  to  consult  the  Scotch 
bishops  and  to  abide  by  their  decision.  Accordingly  on 
the  part  of  the  Usagers  a  Mr.  Peak3  made  personal 
application  to  Bishops  Eose  and  Falconer  for  a  synodical 
determination ;  while  on  the  part  of  the  Non-Usagers 
Bishop  Spinckes  wrote  to  them  to  the  same  effect.  Eose 
and  Falconer  acted,  as  one  would  have  expected  them  to 
act,  with  great  wisdom  and  courtesy.  They  very  properly 
declined  to  make  any  synodical  determination,  which  was 
quite  beyond  their  province,  seeing  that  the  English  Non- 
jurors were  not  under  their  jurisdiction,  but  they  offered 
to  act  as  friendly  mediators ;  and  they  employed  as  com- 
petent a  man  as  could  have  been  found  anywhere  on 
either  side  of  the  Tweed,  Dr.  Eattray  of  Craighall,  to  draw 
up  proposals  of  accommodation.  Eattray,  '  a  man  of 
singular  knowledge  in  ecclesiastical  literature,'4  drew  up 
proposals  '  with  much  judgment,  full  of  Christian  temper, 
and  making  for  peace  ;  ' 5  but  neither  the  Usagers  nor  the 

1  Skinner,  ii.  608.  2  Stephen,  iii.  202. 

3  James  Peake,  Vicar  of  Bowden,  in  Cheshire,  survived  his  deprivation 
in  1690  many  years,  and  may  have  been  the  man  ;  but  it  is  more  likely  to 
have  been  Samuel  Peck,  who  graduated  in  1708. 

4  Skinner,  ii.  626.  5  Lawson,  p.  236. 


444  THE  NONJURORS 

Non-Usagers  in  England  were  then  much  inclined  to 
peace.  Rattray's  proposals  offended  nobody,  but  they  also 
affected  nobody;  and  so  the  matter  dropped  as  far  as 
England  was  concerned. 

The  Usages  controversy  assumed  a  different  phase  in 
Scotland  from  what  it  did  in  England  for  two  reasons  : 

(1)  The  whole  position  of  the  Scotch  Church  in  regard 
to  liturgical  questions  differed  from  that  of  the  English ; 

(2)  The  question  became  mixed  up  with  another  dispute 
with  which  in  itself  it  had  nothing  whatever  to  do.  These 
two  points  must  be  worked  out  a  little  more  in  detail. 

1.  Strange  to  say,  for  many  years  the  Scotch  Episco- 
palians had  never  used  any  liturgy  at  all,  the  attempt  to 
introduce  the  well-known  Scotch  Service  Book  in  1637 
proving  utterly  abortive.  When  there  arose  a  natural 
desire  to  introduce  one,  it  was  much  more  easy  to  adopt 
the  English  than  the  Scotch  Office,  for  the  excellent 
reason  that,  in  consequence  of  the  opposition  of  the 
Covenanters,  very  few  Scotch  Service  Books  had  been 
printed,  and  subsequently  the  Scotch  Church  had  been 
too  poor  to  issue  a  reprint.1  After  the  Union  in  1707  the 
English  Service  Book  began  to  be  generally  used,  the 
adoption  of  it  being  greatly  facilitated  by  liberal  presents 
of  books  from  England,  especially  from  the  University 
of  Oxford,  and  from  pious  Churchmen  with  means,  like 
Robert  Nelson.  But  it  was  chiefly  necessity  which  led 
to  the  introduction  of  the  English  Office,  and  it  was  always 
acknowledged  that  the  Scotch  might  be  used.  Indeed,  it 
sometimes  teas  used.  Bishop  Falconer  said  in  1718  'that 
he  himself  had  administered  with  the  Mixture,  and  by  the 
Scotch  Prayer  Book  years  back,  long  before  any  dispute 
had  commenced  at  London;'  and  he  intimated  that 
p  hose  had  acted  similarly.'-'  Then  the  fact  that 
1  Bee  Skinner,  ii.  c.27.  s. .  Skinner,  ti.  696, 


USAGES   CONTEOVEESY  IN   SCOTLAND        445 

after  the  severe  Act  of  1719  clergy  of  English  ordination 
began  to  officiate  in  Scotland,  and  by  degrees  to  deny  the 
authority  of  the  Scotch  bishops,  naturally  tended  to 
prejudice  patriotic  Scotch  Churchmen  against  English 
customs  generally  and  the  English  Liturgy  in  particular.1 
Hence  the  Usages,  which  agreed  better  with  the  Scotch 
than  with  the  English  book,  were  likely  to  find  favour 
with  many  in  Scotland. 

2.  The  Usages  question  became  mixed  up  with  the 
larger  question,  '  Was  the  Church  to  be  governed  by 
Diocesan  Bishops  or  by  a  College  of  Bishops  at  large  ?  ' 
for  the  Diocesan  party  were  for  the  most  part  Usagers, 
the  College  party,  Non-Usagers.  It  was  a  pity  that  the 
former  weighted  themselves  with  this  extraneous  matter, 
for,  tried  by  the  test  of  Church  principles  in  all  ages,  they 
were  manifestly  in  the  right,  while  the  adoption  of  the 
Usages  was  a  question  on  which  good  Churchmen  might 
hold  different  opinions. 

With  Bishop  Kose  the  last  of  the  Diocesan  bishops 
passed  away,  and  all  who  remained  were  merely  bishops 
at  large.  Accordingly,  at  a  meeting  of  all  the  Episcopal 
clergy,  held  at  Edinburgh  in  that  year,  Bishop  Falconer 
said  that  '  though  they  were  bishops  of  this  Church,  in- 
tended for  preserving  Episcopal  succession  in  it,  they  did 
not  pretend  to  have  jurisdiction  over  any  particular  place 
or  district  in  it ;  '  he  therefore  advised  them  '  to  choose 
proper  persons  for  the  management  of  the  affair.' 2  It 
was  then  proposed  that  they  should  acknowledge  Bishops 
Fullarton,  Falconer,  Millar,  and  Irvine  as  an  Episcopal 
College,  to  whom  as  such  canonical  obedience  was  due. 
This  was  entirely  ignoring  Bishops  Campbell  and  Gad- 
derar,  who,  though  absent  in  London,  had  equal  rights 
with  the  rest;  and  there  is  little  doubt  that  they  were 

1  See  Grub,  iii.  378-9.  *  See  Skinner,  ii.  628-9. 


446  THE  NONJURORS 

ignored  not  because  they  were  absent,  but  because  they 
were  Usagers.  The  proper  course  would  surely  have  been 
under  the  circumstances  to  have  filled  the  vacant  sees  by 
due  election  and  consecration.  But  here  unfortunately  the 
political  or  politico-ecclesiastical  difficulty  came  in.  The 
nomination  to  vacant  sees  was  part  of  the  Koyal  preroga- 
tive, and  they  must  have  recourse  to  the  King  over  the 
water.  The  Chevalier  was  quite  ready  to  stand  upon  his 
rights,  and  addressed  the  bishops  in  the  most  lofty  tone. 
He  graciously  approves  of  the  appointment  of  Bishop 
Fullarton  as  the  successor  of  Bishop  Bose ;  '  but,'  he 
adds,  '  as  to  such  future  promotions  as  may  be  thought 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  your  order,  we  think 
it  equally  for  our  service  and  that  of  your  Church  that, 
notwithstanding  our  present  distance  from  you,  you 
should  propose  to  us  such  persons  as  you  may  think 
most  worthy  to  be  raised  to  that  dignity,'  '  and  he 
actually  appointed  David  Fairbairn  to  a  bishopric  on  his 
own  account. 

Now,  really  this  was  a  sort  of  parody  on  the  Erastianism 
which  prevailed  too  much  in  the  sister  Church  of  England. 
In  England  the  King  and  his  ministers  were  at  any  rate 
persons  who  possessed  real  power,  and  were  tied  down 
by  certain  safeguards :  the  King  by  the  Coronation  Oath 
was  bound  to  be  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  his  ministers  were  professedly  of  the  same  religion. 
But  here  was  a  phantom  monarch  who  had  not,  and  by 
this  time  was  not  likely  ever  to  have,  the  slightest  power 
of  enforcing  his  orders,  who  could  not  reasonably  be 
bed  i"  have  the  Church's  interest  at  heart,  seeing 
that  he  belonged  to  another  oommnnion,  expecting  his 
commands  to  the  Chureli  to  he  obeyed  as  if  he  were 
already  seated  00  tin-,  throne  of  Ids  ancestors  ! 
1  Bd4  Lawi  tin,  p.  8S& 


DIOCESAN  PAETY  AND  COLLEGE   PAETY     447 

But  the  Church  rebelled,  in  spite  of  its  loyalty.  In 
1720  the  clergy  of  Forfar  and  Kincardine  successfully 
insisted  upon  having  the  saintly  Falconer  for  their 
diocesan ;  and,  emboldened  by  their  success,  the  clergy  of 
Aberdeen  elected  Campbell  to  be  bishop  of  that  diocese. 
Then,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  party  of  the  Collegers 
and  Non-Usagers,  no  less  than  four  new  bishops  were  con- 
secrated on  that  side,  Andrew  Cant  and  David  Fairbairn 
in  1722,  and  Alexander  Duncan  and  Eobert  Norrie  in 
1724.  In  1723  a  meeting  of  the  College  of  Bishops  was 
held  at  Edinburgh,  when  Bishop  Irvine,  who  was  virtually 
Primus,  Bishop  Fullarton  being  now  old  and  inactive, 
headed  a  remonstrance  to  the  Episcopal  Church '  exhorting 
and  obtesting  them  all  to  shun  those  fatal  rocks  whereon 
others  have  been  shipwrecked  before  ;  and  requiring  the 
clergy  in  particular  to  forbear  mixture  and  other  obsolete 
Usages.'  But  this  only  succeeded  in  bringing  to  the 
front  the  ablest  and  most  learned  man  on  either  side, 
Dr.  Thomas  Battray  (1684-1743),  who  wrote  a  long 
reply  which  admirably  defended,  not  only  the  Usages,  but 
also,  what  was  far  more  important,  the  independence  of 
the  Church  in  managing  her  own  affairs. 

The  unseemly  exhibition  of  the  two  parties  appointing 
bishops  against  one  another  went  on  for  some  years  ;  but 
in  1732  a  concordat  was  arrived  at  which  virtually  gave 
the  victory  to  the  Diocesan  party,  and  from  that  time 
*  the  land  had  rest  fourteen  years.' 

The  only  event  which  need  be  noticed  during  the 
peaceful  interval  between  the  settlement  of  the  disputes 
and  the  rising  of  1745  is  one  which  brings  together  for  a 
moment  the  English  and  the  Scotch  Nonjurors.  In  1744 
the  Edinburgh  clergy,  being  discontented  with  the  action 
of  the  bishops  in  issuing  canons  without  consulting  their 
presbyters,   corresponded  with    Bishop    George    Smith, 


448  THE  NONJURORS 

whose  name,  it  is  hoped,  the  reader  will  not  have  for- 
gotten. The  interference  of  Bishop  Smith  was  irregular ; 
for  the  English  Nonjurors  had  no  status  in  the  Scotch 
Church ;  but  in  fairness  to  him  it  should  be  remembered 
that  he  was  closely  connected  in  more  ways  than  one  with 
the  Scotch,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  former  chapter.1 

Faint  rumblings  of  the  storm  which  had  passed  away 
might  still  be  heard  in  complaints  against  attempts 
to  introduce  '  forbidden  usages  '  on  the  one  side,  and 
against  attempts  to  re-establish  the  secular  influence 
which  formerly  prevailed  in  the  College  by  means  of  the 
Chevalier  and  his  trustees  on  the  other.2  But,  on  the 
whole,  this  was  a  peaceful  and  a  prosperous  time  ;  every- 
thing seemed  to  be  going  well  until  the  rising  of  1745 
again  unsettled  it  all.  And  yet  the  Scotch  Nonjurors, 
as  a  body,  took  little  part  in  that  rising. 

The  alarm,  however,  created  by  the  later  enter- 
prise was  greater  than  that  created  by  the  earlier,  as 
also  was  the  exasperation  against  the  supposed  abettors 
of  it.  There  was  a  determined  effort  to  stamp  out 
Jacobitism  in  Scotland.  The  conquerors  made  no  nice 
distinction  between  active  Jacobites  and  passive  Non- 
jurors ;  they  thought  that  both  were  tarred  with  the 
same  brush  ;  and  against  both  far  greater  severities  were 
exercised  after  the  '45  than  after  the  '15.  In  fact,  a  sys- 
tematic and  determined  attempt  was  made  to  stamp  out, 
no  only  the  Nonjuring  Church,  but  Episcopacy  generally 
in  Scotland. 

An  English  Churchman  may  feel  thankful  that,  though 

the  House  of  Commons,  in  its  state  of  alarm  and  indigna- 

lion,   passed  a  Bill  to  this  effect  in  1746,   the  English 

Opposed  it  in  a  body  in  the  House  of  Lords,  three 

<>f  them,  Seeker.  Sherlock,  and   Madox,  speaking  against 

'  Bi  •     V  ra,  p.  Ml,  note  l.  Qtnb,  Iv.  '.»■ 


AFTBE  THE  EISING  OF  '45  449 

it.  Of  these  three,  Bishop  Sherlock,  who  had  always 
appreciated  the  merits  and  realised  the  position  of  the 
Nonjurors  better  than  most  of  the  complying  clergy, 
deserves  special  notice.  Having  expressed  frankly  his 
opinion  that  the  Nonjuring  clergy  sympathised  with  the 
late  rebellion,  he  drew  a  very  different  conclusion  from 
that  which  was  probably  expected. 

These  clergymen,  ray  Lords,  by  the  purity  of  religious 
doctrine,  learning,  decency  of  behaviour,  and  chiefly  by  their 
sufferings,  recommended  themselves  to  the  affection  and  esteem 
of  all  ranks  of  people,  and  by  their  example,  as  well  as  private 
lectures,  recommended  with  great  power  those  political  prin- 
ciples they  professed.  These  are  the  men  we  ought  to  gain 
over  by  mild  usage,  if  possible  ;  and  the  more  of  them  we  gain 
over,  the  more  strength  we  shall  add  to  our  present  happy 
establishment,  the  more  we  shall  weaken  the  cause  of  the 
Pretender.1 

This  was  no  more  than  the  truth.  Nothing  could 
exceed  the  quiet  inoffensiveness  and  the  patient  sub- 
mission of  the  Nonjuring  clergy  in  those  times  of  storm 
and  stress  which  succeeded  the  rising  of  '45 ;  but  at  the 
same  time  they  were  determined — and  who  can  blame 
them  ? — to  worship  God  in  their  own  way  and  to  supply 
the  means  of  worship  to  those  who  agreed  with  them; 
and  their  efforts  to  do  so  remind  us  of  the  early  Christians 
who  worshipped  in  the  caves  and  dens  of  the  earth.2 

"When  George  III.  ascended  the  throne,  he  at  once 
set  his  face  against  the  enforcement  of  the  cruel  lawTs ; 
this  was  all  the  more  creditable  to  him  because  the  Scotch 
Nonjurors  could  not,  of  course,  send  in  loyal  addresses  as 

1  Quoted  by  Grub,  iv.  39. 

2  For  details  see  History  of  the  Church  in  Scotland,  by  Michael  (after- 
wards Bishop)  Eussell  (ii.  405),  whose  testimony  is  the  more  valuable 
because  he  belonged  to  '  the  liberal  school,'  and  gave  offence  to  stricter 
Churchmen  by  his  '  liberal  views  ' ;  and  Bishop  Walker's  '  Charge,'  quoted  by 
Stephen,  iv.  345. 

G  G 


450  THE  NONJURORS 

other  religious  bodies  did.  Kindness  begets  kindness,  and 
the  Nonjuring  Church  was  less  inclined  than  ever  to  enter 
into  any  measures  against  the  Government ;  till  at  last, 
on  the  death  of  Charles  Edward  in  1788,  'the  Bishops  met 
at  Aberdeen,  and  after  mature  deliberation  with  their 
clergy  unanimously  agreed  to  submit  to  the  government 
of  King  George,  and  to  testify  this  compliance  by  uni- 
formly praying  for  him  by  name  in  public  worship.'1 
Here  we  must  stop;  when  the  Church  ceased  to  be  a 
Nonjuring  Church  its  doings  ceased  to  come  within  the 
province  of  this  work. 

1  Skinner,  ii.  688. 


451 


CHAPTEK  XI 

THE   NONJURORS   AND   THE   EASTERN   CHURCH 

It  was  only  natural  that  the  Nonjurors,  holding  the 
views  they  did,  should  yearn  for  union,  or  at  least  inter- 
communion, with  other  Churches,  and  should  be  ready  to 
make  any  sacrifice,  short  of  actual  principle,  to  attain  it. 
They  could  not  possibly  accept  the  position  of  one  among 
a  number  of  sects ;  they  fondly  hoped,  even  against  hope, 
that  the  National  Church  would  come  round,  to  their 
views,  and  many  of  them  did  their  best,  consistently  with 
their  principles,  to  throw  no  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
reunion  or,  perhaps  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say,  re- 
absorption.  But  meanwhile  they  were  quite  isolated,  so 
far  as  England  was  concerned.  Union  with  Home  was 
out  of  the  question ;  for,  though  they  were  often  absurdly 
charged  with  being  papists  at  heart,  they  were,  in  fact, 
as  a  body,  Protestant  to  the  backbone.  Rome  had  no 
sympathy  with  them,  nor  they  with  Rome.  But  there 
was  another  Church  older,  and  perhaps  greater,  than 
Rome  itself — a  Church  which  had  preserved  an  unin- 
terrupted succession  from  the  Apostles  for  1700  years — 
a  Church  which  was  the  mother  of  saints,  such  as 
Polycarp,  Ignatius,  Chrysostom,  and  countless  others. 
In  short,  in  despair  of  the  West,  might  they  not  turn 
to  the  East,  and  there  find  friends  with  whom  they 
might  be  united  in  the  bonds  of  Christian  fellowship  ? 
A  closer  communion  with  the  great  Eastern  Church  was 
no  new  project  on  the  part  of  English  Churchmen,  and 


452  THE   NONJURORS 

especially  that  type  of  English  Churchmen  who  would 
have  most  in  common  with  the  Nonjurors.  The  great 
Jacobean  and  Caroline  divines,  of  whom  the  Nonjurors 
were  in  a  very  real  sense  the  legitimate  successors,  had 
shown  a  deep  interest  in  the  subject.  Lancelot  Andrewes 
had  taught  English  Churchmen  to  pray  in  the  very  words 
(translated)  of  the  Greek  Church,  and  had  put  into  their 
mouths  petitions  '  for  the  Churches — Catholick,  Eastern, 
Western,  British';  'The  Church  Ecumenical,  Eastern, 
Western,  our  own  '  ;  '  for  the  Catholick  Church,  its  esta- 
blishment and  increase  ;  for  the  Eastern,  its  deliverance 
and  union.' l  On  the  execution  of  the  Nonjurors'  Martyr- 
King  in  1G49,  the  Greek  Church  had  addressed  an  earnest 
remonstrance  to  the  English  Government ;  Isaac  Basire, 
the  friend  of  that  staunchest  of  staunch  Nonjurors,  Dean 
Granville,  had  spent  fifteen  years  of  enforced  exile  during 
'  the  troubles  '  as  a  sort  of  apostle  of  the  English  Church 
in  the  East ;  Thomas  Smith,  one  of  the  most  learned  of 
all  the  Nonjurors,  had  been  chaplain  at  Constantinople, 
and  in  that  capacity  had  learnt  much  about,  and  taken  a 
great  interest  in,  the  Greek  Church,  and  had  written 
more  than  one  account  of  it ;  the  chief  of  the  •  deprived 
Fathers,'  William  Sancroft,  had  on  more  than  one  occa- 
sion been  brought  into  contact  with  the  Greek  Church, 
and  another  deprived  Father,  Bishop  Frampton,  still  more 
closely. 

In  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne  a  Greek  prelate,  Arsenius, 
Metropolitan  of  Thebais,  came  to  England  to  implore 
l  Ik  aid  of  good  Christians  for  his  Church,  which  was 
reduced  to  great  distress  through  the  tyranny  of  the 
Turl  II-'  lingered  on  until  1710,  and  it  was  through 
liim  as  intermediary  that  the  overtures  of  the  Nonjurors 

1  Bm  the  Introduction  to  G.  Williams's  Orthodox  Cliurch  of  fh 

dto.  p.  \n. 


COEEESPONDENCE  WITH  EASTEEN   CHUECH  453 

were  first  made  and  the  negotiations  carried  on  for  nearly 
nine  years.  The  correspondence  is  of  great  length  and 
great  interest ;  but  as  it  proved  utterly  abortive,  and  as, 
in  the  language  of  the  accomplished  scholar  to  whom  we 
owe  its  first  publication  in  all  its  fulness,  it  '  almost  defies 
analysis,' l  it  has  been  thought  best  in  the  present  work 
to  supply  the  reader  simply  with  the  gist  of  it.  The 
account  of  its  rise  and  progress,  apart  from  its  subject- 
matter,  must  first  be  told  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Thomas 
Brett,  one  of  the  chief  actors  in  its  later  phase.  This 
may  be  transcribed  without  any  preface  or  explanation, 
because  all  the  names  which  occur  will  be  familiar  to 
every  reader  of  the  preceding  pages.  Dr.  Brett,  then, 
writes  the  following 

SHOET  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  WHOLE  AFFAIR 

In  the  month  of  July  1716,  the  Bishops  called  Nonjurors, 
meeting  together  about  some  affairs  relating  to  their  little 
Church,  Mr.  Campbell  took  occasion  to  speak  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Thebais  then  in  London ;  and  proposed  that  we  should 
endeavour  an  Union  with  the  Greek  Church,  and  draw  up  some 
propositions  in  order  thereto,  and  deliver  them  to  that  Arch- 
bishop, with  whom  he  intimated,  as  if  he  had  already  had  some 
discourse  upon  that  subject.  I  was  then  a  perfect  stranger  to 
the  doctrines  and  forms  of  worship  of  that  Church,  but  as  I 
wished  most  heartily  for  a  general  union  of  all  Christians  in 
one  communion,  I  was  ready  to  have  joined  with  Mr.  Camp- 
bell on  this  occasion  :  But  Mr.  Laurence  being  in  the  room, 
drew  me  aside,  and  told  me,  that  the  Greeks  were  more  corrupt 
and  more  bigoted  than  the  Eomanists,  and  therefore  vehemently 
pressed  me  not  to  be  concerned  in  this  affair.  Therefore  I  then 
declined  it.  But  Mr.  Collier,  Mr.  Campbell,  and  Mr.  Spinkes 
joined  in  it,  and  drew  up  proposals,  which  Mr.  Spinkes  (as  Mr. 
Campbell  informed  me)  put  into  Greek,  and  they  went  together 

1  Introduction  to  The  Orthodox  Church  of  the  East  in  the  Eighteenth 
Century,  being  the  Correspondence  between  the  Eastern  Patriarchs  and  the 
Nonjuring  Bishops,  &c,  by  George  Williams,  Senior  Fellow  of  King's 
College,  Cambridge. 


454  THE  NONJURORS 

and  delivered  them  to  the  Archbishop  of  Thebais,  who  carried 
them  to  Muscovy,  and  engaged  the  Czar  in  the  affair,  and  they 
were  encouraged  to  write  to  his  Majesty  on  that  occasion,  who 
heartily  espoused  the  matter,  and  sent  the  proposals  by  James, 
Proto-Cyncellus  to  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  to  be  com- 
municated to  the  four  Eastern  Patriarchs.  Before  the  return 
of  the  Patriarchs'  answer  to  the  proposals,  a  breach  of  com- 
munion happened  among  the  Nonjurors  here,  Mr.  Hawes,  Mr. 
Spinkes,  and  Mr.  Gandy  on  the  one  side,  and  Mr.  Collier,  Mr. 
Campbell,  Mr.  Gadderar,  and  myself  on  the  other.  So  that 
when  the  Patriarchs'  answer  came  to  London,  in  the  year  1722, 
Mr.  Spinkes  refused  to  be  any  further  concerned  in  the  affair, 
and  Mr.  Gadderar  and  I  joined  in  it.  After  Mr.  Gadderar  went 
to  Scotland,  Mr.  Griffin,  being  consecrated,  joined  with  us. 
The  rest  of  the  story  relating  to  this  matter  may  be  gathered 
from  the  Letters  and  the  Subscriptions  to  them.  Mr.  Collier 
subscribes  Jeremias,  Mr.  Campbell  Archibaldus,  Mr.  Gadderar 
Jacobus,  Mr.  Griffin  Johannes,  and  I,  Thomas. 

Thomas  Brett. 
March  30th,  1728. 

A  brief,  but  accurate,  account  of  the  correspondence 
appeared  in  1788  in  Mr.  Skinner's  '  Ecclesiastical  History 
of  Scotland'  (vol.  ii.  pp.  634-40) ;  but  the  whole  correspon- 
dence, at  least  on  one  side,  was  first  rendered  accessible 
to  English  readers  by  Mr.  Lathbury  in  his  '  History  of 
the  Nonjurors'  (1845).  Having  been  furnished  with  a 
copy  which  was  preserved  among  manuscript  collections 
of  Bishop  Jolly,  he  printed  for  the  first  time  all  the  letters 
of  the  Nonjurors,  and  extracts  from  the  letters  of  the 
Patriarchs,  giving  also  a  summary  of  their  arguments. 
Then,  in  1808,  Mr.  George  Williams  published  a  volume 
containing  the  whole  correspondence  on  both  sides,  and 
various  letters  and  documents  bearing  upon  the  subject. 
Be  had  the  advantage  of  being  able  to  collate  three  dis- 
tinct manuscripts:  (1)  That  of  Dr.  John  Jebb;  (2)  thai 
of  Bishop  Jolly,  tinn  depo  ited  al  Trinity  College,  Glen- 
almond,  now  transferred  to   the  Theological  College  of 


HISTOEY  OF  THE  COEEESPONDENCE       455 

the  Episcopal  Church,  Edinburgh ;  and  (3)  a  volume  in 
the  Advocates'  Library,  Edinburgh. 

But  though  Mr.  Williams  found  and  collated  perfectly- 
correct  copies  of  the  correspondence,  the  original  docu- 
ments 'baffled,'  he  says,  'my  search.'  So  the  present 
B:shop  of  Edinburgh  (Dr.  Dowden)  contributed  another 
valuable  addition  to  our  knowledge  by  publishing  a  short 
paper  in  the  'Journal  of  Theological  Studies,'  which 
gives  an  account  of  these  documents,  and  also  a  con- 
temporary catalogue,  drawn  up  by  one  who  knew  the 
inner  history  of  the  movement  and  tells  us  who  were 
the  readers  and  the  translators  of  all  the  documents  on 
the  Nonjurors'  side.  We  find  from  it  that  the  first 
'  Proposal '  was  '  concocted  at  Mr.  Hawes's  ' ;  that  the 
English  was  probably  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Collier  or  Dr. 
Lee,  the  Latin  by  Dr.  Lee,  and  the  Greek  by  Mr. 
Spinckes ;  that  the  long  and  extremely  able  '  Keply  to 
the  Patriarchs'  Answer  to  the  Proposal '  was  drawn  up 
also  by  Collier,  who  was,  in  fact,  the  composer  of  most 
of  the  documents ;  while  the  translator,  both  from  Eng- 
lish into  Greek  and  Latin  on  the  one  side,  and  from  Greek 
and  Latin  into  English  on  the  other,  was  chiefly  T.  Wag- 
staffe,  but  in  some  cases  Mr.  Jebb,  Mr.  Griffin,  and  Mr. 
Ford.1  Curiously  enough,  Campbell,  who  was  the  first 
to  move  in  the  matter,  and  Brett,  who  on  such  a  subject 
was  the  best  qualified  of  all,  only  appear  to  have  drawn 
up  one  document  apiece,  and  neither  of  them  a  very 
important  one.     But  to  turn  to  the  correspondence  itself. 

The  first  document  was  termed  '  A  Proposal  for  a 
Concordate  betwixt  the  orthodox  and  Catholick  remnant 
of  the  British  Churches,  and  the  Catholick  and  Apostolical 

1  Among  the  Nonjuring  Ordinations  in  the  Rawlinson  MSS.  is  the  fol- 
lowing :  '  1721,  June  20,  William  Weldon  Ford  deacon,  and  1722,  Septr-  6, 
preist  by  Mr.  Collier.' 


456  THE   NONJURORS 

Oriental  Church,'  and  it  began  with  a  sufficiently  startling 
proposal — nothing  less  than  an  alteration  in  the  order  of 
the  four  patriarchal   sees,  the  Church  of   Jerusalem   to 
come  first  instead  of  last.     Of  course  the  reason  given  is 
a  valid  one :  '  Jerusalem  the  mother  of  us  all '   was  th3 
natural    '  principle  of   ecclesiastical   unity.'     But  was   it 
likely  that  the  unchanging  East  would  change  an  order 
which  had  been  regularly  settled  by  synodical  authority 
hundreds  of  years  ago  at  the  instance  of  a  small  com- 
munity in  a  distant  island,  about  which  it  appears  to  have 
had  very  little  knowledge  ?     Nor  was  it  much  more  likely 
that   the  Eastern  Church   should   be   interested   in    the 
restoration  of  '  the  most  ancient  English  Liturgy,'  seeing 
it  had  liturgies  of  its  own  which  it  had  not  the  slightest 
intention    of    altering.     Then,   having    specified    twelv3 
points  in  which  they  agreed  with  the  Eastern  Church, 
the  bishops  mention  certain  others  '  wherein  at  present; 
they  cannot  so  perfectly  agree  ' :  (1)  They  cannot  put  the 
canons  of   general   councils   on   a  level  with   Scripture  ; 
(2)  they   are   afraid   of   giving   the   glory   of    God   to    a 
creature,  even  to  the  Mother  of  the  Lord ;   (3)  they  are 
jealous  of  detracting  in  the  least  from  the  mediation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  use  a  direct  invocation 
to   any   angel    or   saint,   not   even   the   Blessed  Virgin ; 
(•!)    though   they  worship   Christ   as   verily   and   indeed 
present    in    the    Holy   Eucharist,    they    hesitate    about 
worshipping  the  sacred  symbols  of  His  Presence ;   and 
(5)  they  demur  to  the  Eastern  use  of  pictures  and  images, 
fearing  it  might  give  'scandal  on  the  one  hand  to  the 
Jews  and  Mahometans,  and  on  the  other  to  many  well- 
meaning  Christians,'  to  prevent  which  they  suggest  that 
an  explanation  of   the  9th   Article  of  the   2nd  Council 
of  Nice  would   ho  d(-siral)lc.      Finally,  they  propose  that, 
if  a  Concordats  be  aimed  at,  a  church  culled  the  Concordia 


PEOPOSAL  OP  A   CONCOEDATE  457 

should  be  built  in  or  about  London  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  promise  that  if  they 
are  '  restored  to  their  just  rights '  they  will  arrange  '  on 
certain  days  Divine  Service  in  the  Cathedral  Church  of 
S.  Paul  according  to  the  Greek  rites.' 

The  document  is  dated  'London,  August  18th,  1716.' 
The  answer  did  not  arrive  for  nearly  five  years,  '  not,'  as 
Archbishop  Arsenius  is  careful  to  explain,  '  owing  to 
Contempt,  but  because  the  Patriarchs  were  occupied  in  a 
Synodical  Examination  of  it.'  But  when  it  did  arrive 
'  by  James  the  Reverend  Patriarchal  Protocyncellus  [sic], 
the  Person  that  carried  the  Questions  to  the  Patriarchs,' 
it  certainly  could  not  be  complained  of  on  the  score  of 
brevity.  It  is  a  document  of  portentous  length,  filling 
fifty-two  printed  pages  8vo.,  exclusive  of  two  '  Synodical 
Explications,'  which  fill  sixteen  more.  It  minutely  ana- 
lyses all  the  proposals  and  difficulties  of  the  Nonjuring 
bishops,  and  criticises  several  of  them  with  considerable 
severity.  The  sum  of  it  all  was  that  the  Eastern  Church 
could  alter  absolutely  nothing,  and  that  it  was  only  on 
these  terms  that  a  Concordate  could  be  arrived  at.  The 
Patriarchs  seem  not  to  be  quite  clear  as  to  whom  they 
were  addressing.  '  They  who  call  themselves  the  Kemnant 
of  Primitive  Orthodoxy  in  Britain ' — thus  (adopting,  as 
will  be  seen,  the  bishops'  own  language)  they  designate 
them,  being  evidently  puzzled  as  to  their  exact  status. 
The  whole  British  Church  would  not  appear  to  be  a  large 
one  to  representatives  of  the  great  Church  of  the  East. 
What  must  a  '  remnant '  of  it  be '? 

They  begin  in  a  rather  unpromising  way  by  devoting 
several  pages  to  the  absolute  perfection  of  their  own 
Church,  '  which  holds  the  only  true,  religious,  and  right 
faith,  and  continues  undefiled  and  most  true,'  and  con- 
clude this  exordium  by  a  hint  that  '  these  Gentlemen,' 


458  THE  NONJURORS 

though  '  lovers  of  Truth,'  '  yet,  being  prepossessed  with 
some  old  prejudices  nourished  and  grown  up  with  them, 
cannot  easily  part  with  them.'  In  this  not  very  hopeful 
spirit  they  begin  to  examine  their  proposals.  The  first 
five,  as  '  they  relate  to  one  point,  the  order  of  the 
Patriarchal  Throne,'  admit  of  but  one  answer,  and  that 
a  decided  negative ;  it  takes  nearly  five  pages  to  make 
it,  but  that  is  what  it  amounts  to.  The  sixth  proposal 
relating  to  the  revival  of  the  ancient  godly  discipline 
seems  to  have  been  misunderstood  by  the  Patriarch, 
owing  apparently  to  the  twofold  meaning  of  the  word 
iraihtia,  '  discipline  and  instruction.'  '  We  can't  conceive 
what  kind  of  discipline  it  is  they  would  instruct  us  in.'  If 
it  was  in  human  learning,  they  had  Aristotle's  works  and 
other  philosophers,  and  schools  in  which  they  were  taught 
and  explained  ;  if  in  Divine,  they  had  the  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers  as  the  rule  of  their  Divinity  Instructions,  and  it 
was  from  no  desire  of  instruction  that  they  were  inclined 
to  union.  The  seventh  proposal  relating  to  conformity 
of  worship  is  pronounced  '  obscure  and  involved,'  and  is 
very  briefly  dismissed.  The  eighth,  concerning  restora- 
tion of  the  most  ancient  English  Liturgy,  is  met  by 
the  answer  that  the  Orthodox  Church  has  the  Liturgy  of 
St.  Chrysostom ;  there  was  no  occasion  for  any  other, 
and  the  ■  Remnant '  had  better  receive  that.  The  ninth, 
promising  a  translation  of  the  Homilies  of  Greek  Fathers 
into  English,  to  be  read  in  the  public  assemblies,  is 
graciously  received;  the  Knglish  could  not  do  better  than 
read  such  homilies  to  benefit  their  souls.  The  last  three 
i  quire  no  particular  comment. 
Turning  now  to  the  twelve  points  on  which  'the 
Buffering   Catholics    Bishops  of  the  old  constitution  in 

Britain '  agreed,  the  Patriarchs  are  satisfied 
in  one  or  two  minor  details)  with  all  except  the  third 


ANSWEE  OP  THE  PATEIAECHS  459 

which  deals  with  the  celebrated  '  Eilioque '  clause  ;  they 
do  not  at  all  agree  with  the  bishops'  explanation  of  the 
clause,  viz.  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  sent  by  the  Son  from 
the  Father,  meaning  no  more  than  what  the  Eastern 
Church  means. 

We  receive  none  who  add  the  least  syllable,  either  by  way 
of  insertion,  commentary,  or  explication  to  this  Holy  Greed,  or 
take  anything  from  it.  .  .  .  We  cannot  lawfully  allow  of  the 
addition  of  the  preposition  8ia  or  Ik,  nor  say  either  from  or 
by  the  Son.  But  we  wou'd  have  those  who  desire  to  com- 
municate and  agree  with  us,  to  keep  it  pure  and  without 
alteration.  We  don't  allow  it  to  be  either  publickly  or  privately 
read  with  addition, 

with  much  more  to  the  same  effect. 

But  the  last  part  of  the  bishops'  letter  is,  of  course, 
the  great  '  crux,'  and  on  this  the  Patriarchs'  answer  is 
remarkably  explicit,  and  not  at  all  conciliatory. 

It  is  time  [they  say]  to  proceed  to  the  •  point  of  greatest 
difficulty,  viz. :  the  proposals,  in  which  those  who  are  called  the 
British  Eemnant  of  Primitive  Piety,  disagree  with  us.  But 
this  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  For  being  born  and  educated  in 
the  principles  of  the  Luthero-Calvinists,  and  possess'd  with 
their  prejudices,  they  tenaciously  adhere  to  them,  like  Ivy  to  a 
tree,  and  are  hardly  drawn  off.  So  paint  of  a  deep  colour  sink- 
ing into  a  Garment,  is  almost  indelible ;  and  the  garment  will 
grow  rotten  and  decayed  before  the  tincture  can  be  washed  off. 

This  prepares  us  for  the  rather  severe  criticism  which 
follows.  The  first  proposition,  that  the  canons  of  ancient 
general  councils  are  not  of  the  same  authority  as  the 
Sacred  Text,  and  may  be  dispensed  with  by  the  governors 
of  the  Church  where  charity  or  necessity  require,  '  can 
by  no  means  be  received  by  the  Eastern  Church.'  Then 
they  argue  this  point  out  in  detail,  and  conclude  :  '  If, 
then,  those  who  are  called  the  Eemnant  of  primitive 
piety  in  Britain  will  be  united  to  the  Oriental  Orthodox, 
they  will  do  well  to  agree  with  us  also  in  this  particular, 


460  THE  NONJURORS 

who  both  think  and  speak  what  is  true.'  On  the  second 
proposition  that  '  tho'  they  call  the  Mother  of  our  Lord 
blessed  ....  yet  they  are  afraid  of  giving  the  glory 
of  God  to  a  creature,'  the  answer  begins  :  '  Here  we 
may  fairly  cry  out  with  David,  They  were  in  great  fear 
where  no  fear  was,'  and  then  they  go  on  to  explain  at 
some  length  the  well-known  distinction  between  Latria 
and  Dulia.  On  the  third  proposition,  that  '  they  cannot 
use  a  direct  invocation  to  any  saint  or  angel,  the  ever- 
blessed  Virgin  herself  not  excepted,  because  they  are 
jealous  of  detracting  in  the  least  from  the  mediation  of 
Jesus  Christ,'  the  Patriarchs  begin  again  with  a  text  of 
Scripture.  '  As  for  the  jealousy  they  speak  of,  it  seems 
like  the  zeal  of  those  of  whom  the  Apostle  says,  I  testify 
of  them  that  they  have  a  zeal,  but  not  according  to 
knoivledge,'  and  then  they  proceed  to  instruct  their  igno- 
rance, ending  with  this  apostrophe  : 

Ye  lovers  of  Piety,  passing  over  these  Mormoes  [bugbears], 
embrace  closely  the  dictates  of  Piety,  and  those  things  which 
ore  profitable  for  the  soul,  and  are  no  ways  hurtful  to  any 
body.  '  Search,'  says  He, '  the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  shall  find 
eternal  life.'  And  set  yourselves  free  from  the  heavy  bondage, 
and  as  I  may  say,1  captivity  of  prejudice;  shake  it  off,  and 
submit  yourselves  to  those  true  Doctrines  which  have  been 
delivered  from  the  beginning,  and  to  the  Traditions  of  the  Holy 
Fathers,  which  arc  not  opposite  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  For,  we 
ood  hopes  of  you,  and  do  in  our  hearts  spiritually  rejoyce 
and  leap  for  joy.  For,  you  give  us  great  expectations  (even  in 
Proposition)  of  the  wish'd  for,  and  much  desired  happy 
union  and  agreement:  which  do  thou,  o  Christ  our  King, 
quickly  effect  by  Thy  Almighty  help,  for  the  intercession  of 
mmaonlate  Mother  and  all  the  Saints:  for,  we  earnestly, 
and  as  we  may  say,  from  the  bottom  of  our  heart  desire  it. 

'  When  ill'  (  sd,  it  is  the  Patriaroh  of  Jerusalem 

>.  fa  it  is  suid  nt  the  end  oi  the  answer,  •  N.r.. 

Pap  i  was  in  the  original  drawn  up  bj  the  Lord  dhrysanthos, 

•i  oi  .i.  hi  alem.' 


ANSWEE  OF  THE  PATEIAECHS  461 

The  fourth  proposition,  however,  in  which  the  bishops 
say  they  are  for  leaving  the  manner  of  Christ's  Presence 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  indefinite  and  undetermined,  and 
think  that  people  may  worship  Christ  in  spirit,  as  verily 
and  indeed  present,  without  being  obliged  to  worship 
the  Sacred  Symbols  of  His  presence,  is  the  most  offensive 
of  all  to  the  Patriarchs.  '  How,'  it  is  replied,  '  can  any 
pious  person  forbear  trembling  to  hear  this  Blasphemy, 
as  I  may  venture  to  term  it  ?  For,  to  be  against  wor- 
shipping the  Bread,  which  is  consecrated  and  changed 
into  the  Body  of  Christ,  is  to  be  against  worshipping  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  our  Maker  and  Saviour  ' ;  and 
then  they  argue  this  point  out  at  some  length. 

The  fifth  and  last  proposition,  ending  with  a  request 
that  the  ninth  article  of  the  second  Council  of  Nice  con- 
cerning the  worship  of  images  be  so  explained  by  the 
wisdom  of  the  Bishops  and  Patriarchs  of  the  Oriental 
Church  as  to  make  it  inoffensive,  and  to  remove  the 
scandal  which  may  be  occasioned  (to  Jews  and  Maho- 
metans, as  well  as  to  many  well-meaning  Christians) 
is  dealt  with  more  tenderly,  but  no  less  explicitly.  The 
Patriarchs  declare  it  is  impossible  to  alter  the  canon  as 
required,  and  argue  that  if  anything  is  to  be  given  up 
for  fear  of  causing  scandal  to  Jews  and  Mahometans, 
the  worship  of  Christ,  which  is  the  greatest  scandal  of 
all  to  them,  would  have  to  be  given  up.  Those  who 
object  to  image-worship  '  are  confuted  from  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  in  which  it  appears  that 
God  first  made  images,  for  he  says,  '  Let  us  make  man 
after  our  own  image  and  similitude '  ! 

The  last  part  of  the  bishops'  proposal  relating  to  the 
erection  of  a  church  in  London,  to  be  called  Concordia, 
and  the  '  performance  of  a  public  service  in  the  Cathedral 
of    S.  Paul  in  Greek  and  English,'  they  welcome  most 


162  THE  NONJURORS 

cordially.  The  answers  are  said  to  have  been  drawn  up 
in  council  at  Constantinople,  April  12,  1718,  though  they 
did  not  reach  their  destination  until  much  later. 

The  '  Keply '  of  the  Nonjuring  bishops  is  also  a  lengthy 
document  filling  nearly  twenty  pages,  and  reflects  credit 
both  upon  the  heads  and  the  hearts  of  those  who  drew  it 
up.  It  confirms  what  has  been  said  in  these  pages  about 
the  learning  and  ability  of  the  later  Nonjurors.  It  is 
perfectly  packed  with  matter,  and  the  numerous  citations 
from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Fathers  are  most  apposite. 
Moreover,  although  the  Patriarchs  had  written  in  a  lofty 
tone  of  superiority  which  must  have  been  rather  exas- 
perating, the  bishops  are  never  once  betrayed  into  making 
reprisals;  there  is  not  one  single  bitter  word  in  their 
reply.  At  the  same  time  they  are  quite  firm  in  their 
own  opinions  ;  though  the  temptation  to  so  small  a  body 
to  make  concessions  in  order  to  win  so  large  a  body  of 
allies  must  have  been  great,  they  never  yield  to  it.  The 
one  point  which  they  do  yield  is  that  in  which  they  had 
been  manifestly  unreasonable— that  is,  in  their  very  first 
proposal,  that  the  order  of  the  Patriarchate  should  be 
changed.  '  Only,'  they  say,  '  we  conceive  that  the  British 
Bishops  may  remain  independent  of  all  the  Patriarch- 
ates'— a  reasonable  conception  enough.  On  the  sixth 
article  they  remark  with  obvious  truth :  «  We  never  in- 
tended to  prescribe  to  the  wisdom,  or  question  the  Learn- 
ing of  the  Catholic  Oriental  Church :  Our  meaning  by 
the  word  iraiheia  relating  only  to  points  of  Discipline '  ; 
and  no  English  reader  could  ever  have  mistaken  their  in- 
tention and  meaning.  Nor  could  any  Englishman  who 
knew  what  their  real  sentiments  were  doubt  for  a  mo- 
ment their  sincerity  in  the  following  dignified  disclaimer  : 

What  conjectures  Boever  the  CathoHo  Oriental  Church  might 
peot  us  of  Emthero^Oahinism,  wn  openly  declare. 


EEPLY  OF  THE  NONJUE1NG  BISHOPS       463 

that  none  of  the  distinguishing  principles  of  either  of  those 
Sects,  can  fairly  be  charged  upon  us  ;  and  we  farther  believe, 
that  upon  the  perusal  of  our  Reply  they  will  readily  acquit  us 
of  any  such  imputation. 

On  the  five  points  on  which  they  had  said  in  their  first 
proposal  that  they  could  not  'perfectly  agree,'  they 
remain  absolutely  unmoved,  and  it  is  in  defence  of  this 
position  that  their  learning  comes  in  most  strikingly.  The 
weakest  part  of  the  defence  is  that  which  deals  with  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  In  their  recoil  from  this 
they  seem  to  give  the  impression  that  they  did  not  con- 
sider the  belief  in  a  Eeal  Presence  essential,  which  could 
hardly  have  been  their  true  meaning ;  for  the  Eeal 
Presence  was  manifestly  an  article  of  faith  with  all  the 
Nonjurors.  The  general  conclusion  at  which  they  arrive 
is  this  : 

If,  therefore,  our  Liberty  is  left  us  in  the  instances  above 
mentioned :  If  the  Oriental  Patriarchs,  Bishops  &c.  will 
authentically  declare  us  not  obliged  to  the  Invocation  of  Saints 
and  Angels,  the  worship  of  Images,  nor  the  Adoration  of  the 
Host ;  If  they  please  publickly  and  authoritatively  by  an 
Instrument  signed  by  them,  to  pronounce  us  perfectly  dis- 
engaged hi  these  particulars  ;  disengaged,  we  say,  at  home  and 
abroad,  in  their  churches  and  our  own  :  These  relaxing  conces- 
sions allow'd,  we  hope  may  answer  the  Overtures  on  both  sides, 
and  conciliate  an  Union. 

Then  follows  a  reminder,  which  surely  was  much 
needed : 

We  farther  desire  their  Patriarchal  Lordships  &c.  would 
please  to  remember  that  Christianity  is  no  gradual  Religion, 
but  was  entire  and  perfect  when  the  Evangelists  and  Prophets 
were  deceased.  And  therefore  the  earliest  Traditions  are  un- 
doubtedly preferable,  and  the  first  Guides  the  best.  For  the 
stream  runs  clearest  towards  the  fountain's  head.  Thus,  what- 
ever variations  there  are  from  the  original  state,  whatever  crosses 
in  belief  or  practice  upon  the  earliest  ages,  ought  to  come  under 


464  THE  NONJURORS 

suspicion.  Therefore,  as  they  charitably  put  us  in  mind  to 
shake  off  all  prejudices,  so  we  entreat  them  not  to  take  it  amiss, 
if  we  humbly  suggest  the  same  advice.  We  hope,  therefore, 
their  Lordships'  impartial  consideration  will  not  determine  by 
prepossession  or  the  precedents  of  later  times ;  but  rather  be 
govern 'd  by  the  general  usages  and  doctrine  of  the  first  four 
Centuries,  not  excluding  the  fifth ;  than  think  themselves 
unalterably  bound  by  any  solemn  decisions  of  the  East  in  the 
eighth  century,  which  was  even  then  opposed  by  an  equal 
Authority  in  the  West. 

It  almost  goes  without  saying  that  the  Patriarchs  did 
not  stir  one  inch  from  their  former  attitude :  '  We  have 
nothing  more  to  observe  nor  any  other  reply  to  make  to 
all  the  propositions  you  have  now  sent  us.'  The  Non- 
jurors must  '  submit  with  sincerity  and  obedience,  and 
without  any  scruple  or  dispute.'  And  to  make  matters 
quite  clear,  they  send  '  an  exposition  of  faith '  as  con- 
tained in  •  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,'  commonly  called  the 
Synod  of  Bethlehem,  in  1672,  as  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  intercommunion.  This  the  Nonjurors  could 
not,  of  course,  accept ;  they  professed  to  be  English 
Churchmen,  and  as  such  they  could  be  tied  only  to  the 
Church  of  England's  formulas. 

The  Nonjuring  bishops  also  entered  into  a  correspon- 
dence with  a  view  to  union  with  the  '  Holy  Governing 
Synod  of  Russia,'  who  were  far  less  repellent  than  the 
Eastern  Patriarchs.  But  the  death  of  the  Emperor  of 
liussia  (Peter  the  Great),  who  was  most  conciliatory  and 
kind,  in  the  midst  of  the  negotiations,  put  a  speedy  ter- 
mination to  what  would  probably  have  been  futile  in 
any  08 

The  correspondence  between  the  Nonjurors  and  the 
en  Church  came  to  the  knowledge  ol  Archbishop 
Wake,  who  is  L72fi  wrote  as  indignant  letter  to  Chrysan- 
tlius,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  complaining  that 


CONCLUSION  465 

certain  schismatical  Priests  of  our  Church  have  written  to  you 
under  the  fictitious  titles  of  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the 
Anglican  Church,  and  have  sought  your  Communion  with 
them  ;  who,  having  neither  place  nor  church  in  these  realms, 
have  bent  their  efforts  to  deceive  you  who  are  ignorant  of  their 
schism. 

He  then  adduces  forcibly  and  ably  the  usual  arguments 
against  the  Nonjuring  separation ;  but  his  arguments 
would  have  had  more  force  had  it  not  been  for  the  fact 
that  fifty  years  before  the  vast  majority  of  English 
Churchmen,  including  the  archbishop's  own  two  im- 
mediate predecessors,  openly  expressed  views,  the  only 
logical  result  of  which  was  their  taking  up  the  very 
position  now  held  by  the  Nonjurors. 


This  last  sentence  brings  us  to  the  conclusion  of  the 
whole  matter.  The  Nonjurors  must  be  judged  by  the 
standard  of  the  seventeenth,  not  that  of  the  twentieth 
century.  Brought  up  in  the  Church  principles  of  the 
earlier  period,  they  could  not  comply  without  manifestly 
setting  those  principles  at  defiance.  So  at  least  they 
argued,  and  from  their  own  standpoint  it  is  extremely 
difficult  to  answer  their  argument.  Their  case  is  clearly 
stated  by  one  of  their  number  '  whose  sensitiveness  to 
logic  is  as  marked  as  his  sensitiveness  to  conscience,' l 
"William  Law ;  and  this  work  may  fitly  conclude  with  an 
extract  from  the  manly  letter  which  he  wrote  to  his 
brother,  announcing  the  loss  of  his  fellowship  because 
he  could  not  take  the  oaths  : 

My  prospect,  indeed,  is  melancholy  enough,  but  had  I  done 
what  was  required  of  me  to  avoid  it,  I  should  have  thought  my 
condition  much  worse.      The  benefits  of   my  education  seem 

'  See  Sir  Leslie  Stephen's  English  Thought  in  the  Eighteenth  Century, 
ii.  39. 

H  H 


466  THE  NONJURORS 

partly  at  an  end,  but  that  same  education  had  been  more 
miserably  lost  if  I  had  not  learnt  to  fear  something  more  than 
misfortunes.  As  to  the  multitude  of  swearers,  that  has  no 
influence  upon  me  :  their  reasons  are  only  to  be  considered  ; 
and  everyone  knows  no  good  ones  can  be  given  for  people 
swearing  the  direct  contrary  of  what  they  believe.  Would  my 
conscience  have  permitted  me  to  have  done  this,  I  should  stick 
at  nothing  where  my  interest  was  concerned,  for  what  can  be 
more  heinously  wicked  than  heartily  to  wish  the  success  of  a 
person  upon  the  account  of  his  right,  and  at  the  same  time  in 
the  most  solemn  manner,  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  as  you 
hope  for  mercy,  swear  that  he  has  no  right  at  all  ?  If  any 
hardships  of  our  own,  or  the  example  of  almost  all  people  can 
persuade  us  to  such  practice,  we  have  only  the  happiness  to  bo 
in  the  broad  way. 


467 


AN     ALPHABETICAL    LIST     OF     NONJUKOKS, 
CLEEICAL   AND    LAY, 

COMPILED  PAETLY  FEOM  NOTES  ON  INDIVIDUAL  NON- 
JUEOES  TAKEN  IN  THE  PEEPAEATION  OF  THIS  WOEK, 
AND  PAETLY  FEOM  A  COLLATION  OF  PEEVIOUS  LISTS, 
PEINTED   AND   MANUSCEIPT,   VIZ.  : 

1.  A  List  of  several  of  the  Clergy  and  others  in  the 
Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  who  were 
not  thought  to  Qualify  themselves  upon  the  devolu- 
tion. (Appendix  No.  VI.  to  the  Life  of  Mr. 
Kettlewell,  prefixed  to  the  Compleat  Collection  of 
his  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  v-xiii.     1719.) 

This  was  probably  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Francis  Lee, 
compiler  of  the  Life,  and  was  perhaps  the  list  conveyed 
by  Dr.  Hickes  to  King  James,  with  a  view  to  the  New 
Consecrations.  As  the  title  shows,  it  does  not  profess  to 
be  a  complete  list ;  it  contains  only  the  names  of  the 
earlier  Nonjurors,  and  includes  scarcely  any  of  the  laity. 
The  strange  vagaries  of  spelling  which  still  prevailed  in 
the  early  eighteenth  century  render  it  difficult  in  some 
cases  to  identify  the  names  of  persons,  or  places,  or  both. 
In  short,  though  it  is  a  most  interesting  and  valuable 
document,  *  it  wanted,'  as  Mr.  Warren  says,  '  a  good  deal 
of  editing,'  which  it  did  not  receive  until  he  himself 
undertook  the  task  after  the  lapse  of  177  years. 


468  THE  NONJURORS 

2.  A  Catalogue  of  the  English  Clergy  and  other  Scholars 

who  have  refused  to  take  the  new  oaths  in  Bowles's 
Life  of  Bishop  Ken,  vol.  ii.  ch.  xi.  and  xii.     (1830.) 

This  is  said  to  have  been  '  taken  from  a  document 
among  the  Ken  Papers,  collected,  probably  under  Ken, 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harbin,  chaplain  at  Longleat.'  It  was 
corrected,  so  far  as  the  diocese  of  Bath  and  Wells  went, 
in  the  Life  of  Bishop  Ken  by  a  Layman  (J.  L.  Anderdon), 
Appendix  C  to  vol.  ii.,  but  is  still  very  imperfect  and 
inaccurate. 

3.  A  List  of  the  English  Ecclesiastical  Nonjurors  of  the 

Beign  of  William  III.,  in  an  Appendix  to  Palm's 
History  of  the  Church  of  England  from  1688  to 
1717.     (1851.) 

This  is  no  improvement  upon  the  preceding  lists. 

4.  A   List,  partly  corrected,   of  the   Nonjuring    Bishojis 

and  other  Clergy  and  Ecclesiastics  of  1689  and 
later.  Compiled  from  Kettlewell  and  other  sources, 
published  anonymously  by  the  late  Rev.  C.  F.  S. 
Warren.     (1895.) 

This  is  drawn  up  with  great  care  and  accuracy.  Mr. 
Warren  has  been  able  to  make  some  valuable  additions 
and  corrections  from  a  MS.  of  1733  ;  he  has  taken  infinite 
pains  to  identify  persons  from  the  published  Graduati 
Oxonienses  and  Cantabrigicnses,  and  places  from  Crock- 
ford's  Directory  ;  he  has  avoided  repetitions  and  corrected 
endless  obvious  errors  in  the  earlier  lists  ;  but  he  modestly 
tells  us  in  his  Preface  that  it  is  still  very  imperfect,  and 
lie  suspects  that  'consultation  of  the  Nonjuring  treasures 
ot  tin'  Bodleian  would  have  very  much  improved  it; 
bat  this  was  not  in  his  power.'  I  am  painfully  conscious 
that  the  present  list  is  also  very  imperfect,  but  it  has  the 


CLERICAL  AND  LAY  NONJUEOES  469 

advantage  at  any  rate  of  having  been  drawn  up  after  a 
careful  consultation  of  the  following  manuscript  treasures : 

1.  An    Alphabetical    Catalogue    of    the    Dignified    and 

Beneficed  Clergy  and  others  ivho  declined  to  take 
the  oaths  required  after   the  Revolution   in    1688. 
(Eawlinson  MSS.  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  D.  1238.) 
This  is  Dr.  Eawlinson's  own  list.      It  is  not  in  his 
handwriting,    but    it    contains   notes    by   him,  and    ap- 
pended to  it  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  Browne  Willis  to  him, 
in  which  he  calls  it  '  your  list.'     It  contains  311  names. 

2.  The  Names  of  y3  Clergy,  Felloios  of  Colledges,  and 

Schoolmasters  who  have  not  taken  ye  Oaths  to  ye 
Government  in  1699.  [Laurence]  Howell's  Collec- 
tions for  Cambridge.  (Eawlinson  MSS.,  B.  281  in 
the  Bodleian.)     About  355  names. 

3.  Manuscripts   in   the   Library   of    St.  John's    College, 

Cambridge,  including 

(a)  The  names  of  the  Suspended  and  Deprived 
Clergie  in  the  Diocese  of  Norwich  (37),  with 
a  heading  in  Thomas  Baker's  handwriting, 
1  This  was  drawn  up  in  order  to  their  relief. ' 

(6)  Clergy  in  the  Diocese  of  York  (14),  whose  cases 
are  fully  described  in  a  letter  from  a  Mr. 
Watkinson  of  York  to  Bishop  Lloyd  of 
Norwich,  written  at  the  Bishop's  request, 
also  evidently  with  a  view  to  their  relief. 
This  is  from  a  MS.  left  by  Bishop  Lloyd 
himself  to  St.  John's  College. 

(c)  A  Catalogue  of  Nonjurors,  Writers,  from  the 
year  1689.  It  contains  154  names,  several 
of  which  are  not  mentioned  in  other  lists. 

{d)  Ordinations  and  Institutions  of  Nonjurors 
and  Successors  of  Cambridge.     18  names. 


470  THE  NONJURORS 

1  Ex  Epist.  Tho.  Baker  ad  Dr.  Rawlinson,* 
January  22,  1732-3. 

(e)  Matriculations.     Admissions  of  Nonjurors  at 

Oxford.  23  names.  '  Ex  Epist.  N.  Cymes 
ad  Dr.  Rawlinson,'  February  11,  1731-2. 

(f)  Matriculations   of   Nonjurors    of    St.   John's 

College  at  Cambridge.  13  names,  with 
full  descriptions.  ■  Ex  Epist.  Tho.  Baker 
ad  Drcm  Rawlinson,'  July  15,  1730. 

(g)  Matriculations,  Graduations,  &c.  of  Nonjurors 

in  Cambridge,  ex  epistolis  Th.   Baker  ad 
Dr ■'"'  Rawlinson,   dat.  July   25,  1733,   and 
January  4,  1733-4.      33   names,  with  de- 
scriptions. 
(li)  Another   list,  with   the   same   title   as  above, 
1730,  containing  24  names  and  descriptions. 
The  imprimatur  of  so  learned  and  accurate  a  man  as 
Thomas  Baker  is  most  valuable. 

I  have  also  derived  assistance  in  drawing  up  the  list 
from  Hearnes  Collections,  from  the  Calendar  of  State 
Papers  {Domestic  Series),  from  The  Cheshire  Sheaf,  and 
from  the  Nonjuring  Ordinations  and  Nonjuring  Con- 
secrations recorded  by  Rawlinson. 

When  a  name  is  inserted  on  only  one  authority  I  have 
indicated  that  authority ;  when  two  or  more  authorities 
differ,  and  I  cannot  be  sure  which  is  right,  I  have  given 
the  alternative  reading  in  brackets.  The  different  autho- 
rities are  referred  to  under  the  following  letters  : 

K.  =  KettleweU  list.  W.  =  Warren  list.1 

B.  =  Rawlinson  list.  L.  H.  =  Howell  list. 

St.  J.  =  St.  John's   MBS.,   including  a,  b,  c,  </,  $, 
/.  9,  fc 

1  This  includes  all  that  is  valuable  in  Howies,  '  a  Layman,'  and  Palin  ; 
I",  my  nptrtalM  has  been  that  when  Mr.  Wurivn  differs  fiom  any  of  tin m. 
hi  is  right,  and  thty  are  wrong. 


CLERICAL  AND  LAY  NONJURORS 


471 


H.  =  Hearne. 
Ch.  Sh.  =  Cheshire  Sheaf. 

When  Complied  is  attached  to  a  name  it  means  that 
the  person  refused  the  oath  at  first  but  took  it  later. 

When  Penitent,  that  he  took  the  oath  at  first  but 
repented  and  recanted. 

When  Non-Abjuror,  that  he  stumbled  at  the  oath  of 
abjuration,  not  that  of  allegiance. 

'  V.'  stands  for  Vicar,  •  R.'  for  Rector,  and  '  F.'  for 
Fellow. 


Acworth,  Thomas 
Adee,  John  . 
Allen,  Cuthbert   . 
Alleyne,  Thomas. 
Altham,  Roger    . 


Amy,  John  . 

Andrews,  John    . 
Andrews,  William 

Andrews,  — 

Anger,  —  [St.  J.] 
Appleford,  Robert 
Armytage,  Chris- 
topher 
Arnold,  Thomas  . 

'Aston,  Thomas    . 

Audley,  John 

Babington,  — 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


V.  of  Pyrton,  Non-Abjuror 
F.  of  B.N.C.  Oxford 
V.  of  Hornby   . 
F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb. 
Canon  of  Ch.  Ch.  and  Reg. 

Prof,  of  Hebrew,  Oxford, 

Complied 
Ord.  D.  by  Bishop  Lloyd 

of  Norwich,  1684 
M.A.  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxford 
—  Wedmore,  Somerset     . 

Undergrad.  of  Univ.  Coll., 

Oxford 
C.  of  Botesdale 
F..of  St.  John's,  Camb. 
F.  of  Peterhouse,  Camb. 

R.  of  Deene 


Oxford 

Chester 


Bath  and 
Wells 


Norwich 


Peter- 
borough 


Chaplain  to  Earl  of  Cla- 
rendon 
V.  of  St.  Catherine  Cree  .    London 


V.  of  Trelleck  . 
V.  of  Sibbertoft 


Llandaff 
Peter- 
borough 


472 


THE  NONJURORS 


Preferment,  etc. 


Bailey,  Daniel 
Baker,  Thomas 

Ball,  John   . 
Bankes,  Charles 
Barfoot,  James 
Barnes,  Miles 

Barrow,  Henry 
Bateman,  John 
Battel,  Arthur 
Bayley,  John 
Bayley,  Thomas 

» Baynard,  John 
-  Beach,  William 
Beaufort,  James 

Beaufort,  John 

Bedford,  Hilkiah 


Bedford,  Thomas. 

Bedford,  William 

Beeston,  Edward. 

Bell,  Thomas 
Benlowes,  George 
Benson,  Samuel  . 

Berkley,  William 

Bettenham,  Jas.  . 
Beynon,  Thomas . 

Billers,  John 


K.  of  Long  Newton 

F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb. 

C.C.C.  Oxford 
:  V.  of  Cheshunt 

Usher  of  Abingdon  School 
.  Senior   F.  of  Peterhouse, 
Cambridge 

V.  of  Horton  Kirby 
J  F.  of  Merton,  Oxford 
!  Usher  at  Hertford  School . 
I  Of  Tettenhall    . 
,  K.   of    Slimbridge    (F.    of 

Magd.  Oxf.),  Complied 
!  Archdeacon  of  Connor 
'  V.  of  Orcheston  St.  George 

V.  of  Lanteglos  by  Camel- 
ford 

Scholar  of  Trim  Coll. 
Camb.,  Complied 

F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb. 

E.   of  Whittering    (N.-J. 

Bishop) 
,  Son    of     the    above,     St. 
I     John's,  Cambridge 
i  C.  of  Brookland 

R.  of  Sproughton  and 
Melton 

V.  of  Askham   . 

C.  of  Easington 

Archdeacon  and  Preb. 
[Canon  Res.,R.&  L.  H.] 
of  Hereford,  V.  of  Sellack 

B.  ofClopfaill   . 

Printer,  London 

C.  "f  Upton-on -Severn 

P.  of  St.  John's  and 
Public  Orator,  Camb. 


Hereford 
Durham 


London 
Oxford 


Eochest'r 

Lincoln 

Lichfield 

Glo'cester 

Connor 
Sarum 
Exeter 


Peter- 
borough 


Canter- 
bury 
Norwich 

Carlisle 

York 

Hereford 

Lincoln 
(now  Ely) 

Worcest'r 


CLEEICAL  AND  LAY  NONJUEOES 


473 


NAME 

PREFERMENT,  ETC. 

DIOCESE 

Bisbie,  Nathanael 

R.  of  Long  Melford  . 

Norwich 

Bishop,  William  . 

F.  of  Balliol,  Oxford 

Blackbourne,  Jno. 

Trin.  Coll.    Camb.,    N.-J. 
Bishop 

Blackbourne,  Th. 

Trin.  Coll.  Camb.  [St.  J.] 

Bladon,  William  . 

Of  Woodstock,  Trin.  Coll. 
Camb.,  Non-Abjuror 

Blair,  Patrick 

M.D.  [St.  J.] 

Boardman,  Thos. 

R.  of  Grappenhall     . 

Chester 

Bokenham,     An- 

R. of  Helmingham  . 

Norwich 

thony 

Bold,  Michael 

F.  of  Trinity  Hall,  Camb. 

Bolton,  —   . 

Undergrad.  of  B.N.C.  Oxf. 

Bonwicke,       Am- 

Headmaster of  Merchant 

London 

brose 

Taylors'  School 

Bonwicke,      Am- 

Son   of     the     above,    St. 

brose 

John's  Coll.  Cambridge 

Boothe,  Charles  . 

Last  N.-J.  Bishop 

Bosse,  Richard    . 

V.    of     Leathley    [R.    of 
Scawby,  R.  and  L.  H.] 

York 

Boteler,  Thomas . 

F.  of   Trin.    Coll.    Camb., 

V.  of  Masworth,  Bucks 

Lincoln 

Boteler,  — 

R.  of  Cadoxton 

Llandaff 

Boteler,  — 

R.  of  Litchborough  [R.]    . 

Peter- 
borough 

Bowdler,  Stephen 

Undergrad.  of  B.N.C.  Oxf. 

Bowdler,  Thomas 

Clerk  of  the  Admiralty 

Bowyer,  William 

Printer,  London 

Bowyer,  William 

•  The  learned  Printer,'  son 
of  the  above,  St.  John's, 
Camb. 

Bradley,  Thomas 

R.  of  Walton-on-the-Hill, 

Win- 

and V.  of  Carshalton 

chester 

Bravell,  Richard  . 

R.  of  Welton    . 

York 

Bravill,  Dr. . 

[L.H.]     .         .         .         . 

Bristol 

Breach,  William  . 

Ch.  Ch.  Oxford,  M.D. 

Brett,  Daniel 

V.  of  Hockham 

Norwich 

Brett,  Thomas     . 

R.  of  Betteshanger  (N.-J. 

Canter- 

Bishop), Penitent 

bury 

Brett,  Thos.,  son 

(N.-J.  Bishop)  . 

Canter- 

of the  above 

bury 

::-i 


THE  NONJURORS 


name 

l-ltEFEKMENT,  ETC. 

DIOCESE 

Brett,  Thomas     . 

V.  of  West  Dean,  and  R. 

Chiches- 

of Folkington 

ter 

Brian  (see  Bryan) 

Brokesby,  Francis 

V.  of  Rowley,  Complied    . 

York 

Bronie  [Bruce,  R.] 

R.    of     Middleton     Tyas, 
Complied 

York 

Brome      [Broom, 

Commoner  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxf. 

W.] 

Brooke,  Philip     . 

St.  John's  Coll.  Cambridge 
[St.  J.] 

Brookes,  Thomas 

R.  of  Cunington,  or  Con- 

Ely  [Nor. 
R.] 

[Edward,  St.  J.] 

ington,  Complied 

Brown,     Christo- 

R. of  Priston    . 

Bath  and 

pher 

Wells 

Brown,  Thomas  . 

Archdeacon  of  Derby  and 
Preb.  [Canon  Res.,  R.]  of 
Lichfield 

Brown,  William  . 

Undergrad.  of  Balliol,  Oxf. 

[W.] 
M.D.  of  Manchester  (N.-J. 

Bishop) 
F.   of    St.    John's,    Cam- 

Browne, P.  J. 

Browne,  Thomas 

bridge 

Bryan,  Matthew . 

R.    of    Limington    [C.    of 

Bath  and 

Newington  Butts,  R.] 

Wells 

Buchanan,  Chas. 

R.  of  Farnborough,  Peni- 

Win- 

tent, Complied 

chester 

Buddie,  Adam 

F.  of  St.  Cath.  Hall,  Cam- 
bridge, Complied 

Bull,  Digby 

R.  of  Sheldon    . 

Lichfield 

Bunnys,  Edward 

C.    of    St.    Dionis    Back- 
church  [Reader  of,  L.  H. 
and  St.  J.] 

London 

Burdyn,  Henry    . 

V.  of  Beighton 

Lichfield 

Burgees,  — 

Bristol 

Burrell,  —  . 

Of     Gorleston     [R.     and 
St.  J.] 

Norwich 

Cair,  Richard 

Preb.  <>f  Lincoln  and  R. of 
I  [nntingdon 

1  lincoln 

Carr,  William 

R.  of  Jevington 

Chichest'z 

CLERICAL  AND  LAY  NONJUEOES 


475 


Carte,  Samuel 

Carte,  Thomas, 

bro.  of  the  above 
Cart wright,  Thos. 

Cart wright,  Thos. 
Castle,  —     . 

Cayley,  Simon     . 


Cholmondeley, 

Francis 
Clarendon,  Henry 

Hyde,  2nd  Earl 

of 
Cock,  John  . 
Cockburn,  Patrick 

Cole,  Christopher 

Cole,  — 

Cole  or  Coles,  Wm, 

Collier,  Jeremy    . 

Cooke,  Shadrach . 

Cooke,  Thomas    . 
Cope,  Jonathan    . 

Cotton,  Eobert     . 
Cotton,  John,  his 

son 
Crane,  John 
Cressy,  Joseph     . 
Creyk,  John 


Crofton,  Richard . 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Header     of     the     Abbey 

Church,  Bath 
Bishop  of  Chester  [ignored 

by  L.  H.] 
N.-J.  Bishop 
Reader  of  Ormond  Chapel 

[W.] 
C.  of  Barston  in  Berkes- 

well  and  Chap,  to  Earl 

of  Aylesbury,  Complied 
M.P.,  Cheshire  [Ch.  Sh.] 


V.  of  St.  Oswald's,  Durham 
C.  of  St.  Dunstan's  (East 

or  West  ?) 
R.  of  Billesdon 
B.  of  Chellesworth  [W.]   . 
V.  of  Charlbury  (F.  of  St. 

John's,  Oxford) 
Lecturer   at    Gray's   Inn, 

N.-J.  Bishop 
Lecturer  of  Islington,  B. 

of  Tanfield,  Complied 
F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb. 
V.  of   Betley   [and  Chap. 

to  Sir  J.  Egerton,  K.] 
Lancashire  (?)     Esquire 


C.  of  Winwick  . 
I  V.  of  Sheriff  Hutton 
I  Of     St.     John's,     Camb., 
Chaplain     to     Earl     of 
Winchilsea 
Headmaster    of     Preston 
School 


Bath  and 

Wells 
Chester 


London 
Lichfield 


Durham 
London 

Lincoln 

Norwich 

Oxford 

London 

London 
Chester 

Lichfield 


Chester 
York 


Chester 


476 


THE  NONJURORS 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Crossinan,  James    V.  of  Banwell  . 


Crosthwaite, 

Thomas 
Crowbrow,    Sam. 


Crowther  [Crow- 
der,  L.  H.], 
Joseph 


Cuffe,  John 

Cumberland,  —  . 

Daillon,      James, 

Count  de  Lude 

Davenport,  John . 

Davie    or    Davis, 

John 
Davis,  Thomas  . 
Davison,  Jonathan 
Davison,  Thomas 
Dawkins,  George 
Day,  Henry 
Deacon,  Thomas 
Dobree,  — 

Dod,  Samuel 
Dodwell,  Henry  . 

Doughty,  Henry  . 


1  townes,  Samuel 


F.  of  Queen's,  Oxf.,  and 
Preb.  of  Exeter 

Archd.  of  Nottingham, 
Preb.  of  York  and  of 
Southwell  [K.  of  South- 
well, L.  H.],  F.  of 
Queens',  Camb. 

Chanter  of  St.  Paul's, 
Principal  of  St.  Mary 
Hall,  Oxford,  Preb.  of 
Worcester,  B.  of  Tred- 
ington     . 

E.  of  Wicken    . 

C.  of  Tabley      . 

V.  of  Wrawby 

E.  of  West  Easen,  Com- 
plied 
V.  of  Frodsham,  Complied 

E.  of  Yerbeston 

V.  of  Aldworth 

C.  of  Norton,  Complied 

V.  of  Icklesham 

E.  of  Hunstanton 

N.-J.  Bishop 

E.     of     Sausthorpe     and 

Aswardby 
V.  of  Chigwell  . 
Camden      Eeader     (Prae- 

lector)  of  History,  Oxford 
0.  of   Robin   Hood's  Bay 

[Filingdales,  nr.  Whitby, 

K.'],  |  andex  Abp.  of  York, 

K.|,  N.-.J.  Bishop 
Probationer     F.    of     St. 

John's,  Oxford 


Bath  and 
Wells 


London 


Worcester 
Peter- 
borough 
Chester 

Lincoln 

Lincoln 

Chester 

S.  Davids 

Ely 

Durham 

Chichest'r 

Norwich 

Lincoln 

London 

York 


CLERICAL  AND  LAY   NONJURORS 


477 


I'RKFJ'KMENT,  ETC. 


Theo- 


F.  of  Balliol,  Oxford 


Downes, 
philus 

Dowsing,  John    .  j  Chanter  of  Ely 
Dresser,  Thomas .  i  K.  of  Westley  . 
Dunkyn,  Maurice  i  Ireland 
Dunn,        Jerman  {  E.  of   Waddington,  Com- 


[Herman,  St.  J.] 

Dykes   [or  Dyke, 

E.],  Oswald      . 

Eades,  Thomas    . 
Earbery,  Matthias 
Eccles,  —    . 
Edmunds,    David 
Edwards,  — 
Edwards,  Samuel 

Edwards,  Thomas 
Edwards,  Thomas 
Egerton,  Philip  . 
Ellerby,  James  . 
Ellis,  James 

Ellys,  Edmund  . 
Emmerson,  Wm. 

Enfield,  Thomas  . 

Ennis,  Alexander 

{see  Innes) 
Ensor,  Eichard    . 
Erskine,  William 

Falkner,  Thomas 

Farmer  [Harmer, 

L.  H.],  Edward 

Farringdon,  John 

Fenton,  Elijah  . 
Fettiplace,  Thos. 


plied 

Senior  Taberdar  of  Queen's, 
Oxford 

V.  of  Chiddingly 
i  V.  of  Neatishead 
|  Balliol  Coll.  Oxford  [H.] 
!  B.  of  Kenilworth,  Penitent 


Ely 
Lincoln 


Chichest'r 
Norwich 

Lichfield 

Bristol 

Norwich 


V.    of    Eye     and    E.    of 

Weston  [Troston,  St.  J.]  j 
Son  of  Vicar  of  Kingston  .  !  Hereford 
Trinity  Coll.  Oxford 
E.  of  Astbury,  Complied   .    Chester 
j  V.  of  Chiswick  .         .    London 

I  Schoolmaster   at    Thistle-    London 

worth  (Isleworth) 
E.  of  East  Allington  .    Exeter 

Scholar     of     St.     John's, 

Camb. 
Trin.  Coll.  Oxford  [F.  of, 

L.  EL] 


|  E.  of  Heckham  ['?]    . 

j  E.  of  Wrangle,  Complied  . 

|  V.of  Middlewich,  Complied 
V.  of  Montford 


Lichfield 
Lincoln 

Chester 
Lichfield 


E.  [C,  Ch.  Sh.]  of  Church  j  Chester 

Minshull 
i  Poet,  Non-Abjuror 
\  M.A.    of  St.  John's  Coll. 
i     Camb.,  Curate 


478 


THE   NONJURORS 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Fisher,  —    . 


Fitzgerald,  John . 
Fitzwilliam[s], 
John 

Fletcher,     James  ! 

[Flesher,  W.] 
Fletcher,  —  .  | 

Flud[Fludd,L.H. ! 
Flood,  W.J 

Ford,        William 
Wei  don 

Fothergill,Marma-J 
duke 

Fothergill,     Wil- 
liam 

Frampton,  Robert 

Fullerton,  Wm.    .  ! 

Gandy,  Henry      . 


Gardiner,  Thomas 
( iainctt,  Thomas 
Gervase,  Humphry 

(see  Jervis) 
Qibbea,  John 
Giffard,  Francis  . 

Gifford    [Gyffard,  j 
W.],  William 

Gilbert,  John 
( lilbert,  Michael  . 
( lipps,  ( foorge 

<  lordon,  Robert  ■ 
( k>sling[<  Jostling, 

li.  |,   I 

<  tooling,  —  . 


C.  of  Warham  [R.,  L.  H., 

and    St.  J.,  Washbrook, 

W.] 
Archdeacon  of  Dublin 
R.  of  Cottenham 

Canon  of  Windsor,  F.  of 

Magd.  Oxford 
■  A.M.  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxf .'  [R.] 


V.     of     Marnham 

Newark) 
V.  of  Halstock  . 


(near 


Ord.  by  Collier,  D.  1721, 

P.  1722 
R.  of  Skipwith 

Ord.  by  Griffin,  1728 

Bishop  of  Gloucester 
Balliol  Coll.  Oxford  {H.] 

R.of  St.  Leonard's,  Exeter, 
Sen.   F.   of   Oriel,  N.-J. 
Bishop 
F.  of  All  Souls',  Oxford 
Of  Manchester,  N.-J.  Bp. 


R.  of  Gissing     . 
R.    of    Russel    [Rushall], 
Wilts,  Non-Abjuror  [H.] 
R.  of  Great  Bradley  . 


Norwich 


Dublin 
Ely 


York 
Bristol 

York 


Exeter 


Norwich 
Saroxn 

Norwich 


!  V.  of  Medmenham,  Bucks. 

Lincoln 

C.  of  Spcxhall            .         .    Norwich 

;  R.  of  Brookley  . 

Norwich 

N.-J.  Bishop 

V.  of  Starry  and  C.  of  St. 

Canter- 

Mary Bred  in 

bury 

'Of  — 

Lincoln 

CLERICAL  AND  LAY  NONJURORS 


479 


NAME 

PREFERMENT,  ETC. 

DIOCESE 

Granville,  Denis  . 

Dean  and  Archdeacon  of 
Durham  and  R.  of  Easing- 
ton  and  Sedgefield 

Durham 

Grascome    [Gras- 

R.  of  Stourmouth     . 

Canter- 

comb, L.    H.], 

bury 

Samuel 

Grey,  — 

C.  in  Newcastle 

Durham 

Griffin,  John 

N.-J.  Bp,  R.  of  Churchill 

Worcest'r 

Griffith,  John       . 

Petty  Canon  and  R.  of  St. 

Nicholas 

Worcest'r 

Grigg,  William    . 

F.  of  Jesus  Coll.  Camb. 

Guy,  Henry 

Of  Kendall  [not  beneficed, 
K] 

Chester 

Gwillym,  James  . 

V.  of  Harewood 

Hereford 

Hall,  Henry 

Son  of  R.  of  Castle  Camps, 
a  N.-J.  Bishop 

Hall,  James  Acres 

F.     of     B.N.C.     Oxford, 
Penitent 

Hall,  Joseph 

Son     of     R.     of     Castle 
Camps,  ord.  D.  and   P. 
in  1716 

Hall,  Eichard 

R.  of  Kettlethorpe    . 

Lincoln 

Hall,  Thomas 

R.  of  Castle  Camps  . 

Ely 

Hall,  —       . 

Chaplain   to   Countess  of 
Kent  [R.  and  L.  H.] 

Hamerley     [Am- 

V.  of  Burton  Dassett 

Lichfield 

mersly,  R.  and 

L.    H.,    Ham- 

mersley,       K.], 

Chamberlain 

Hanbury,  Wm.    . 

R.  of  Botley      . 

Win- 
chester 

Hanbury,  — 

Balliol  Coll.  Oxford,  M.D., 

Utrecht  [H.] 

Hansted,  — 

R.  of  Searby 

Lincoln 

Harbin,  George   . 

Chaplain  to  Bishop  Turner 
of  Ely,  and  then  to  Lord 
Weymouth 

Harmer,    —    (see 

'  Farmer ') 

480 


THE  NONJURORS 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Harsnett,  Robert 


Hart,      Percyval, 

M.P. 
Harte,  Walter      . 


Harvey,  Joseph 


Hatton,     Christo- 
pher 
Hawes,  Samuel   . 


Headlam,  Richard 
Hearne,  Thomas . 

Hellier,  George    . 

Herbert,  Edward 
Heron,  Arthur 

Heron,  John 

Hickes,  George    . 
Higden,  William . 

ms,  15cvil     . 

Bildyard,  —        .  | 

Hill,—        .         . 
Bind,  William     . 


Preb.  of  Wells 
R.  of  St.  Clement's,  Ox- 
ford, Complied 

Of  Lullingston,  Kent 


Bath  and 
WTells 


i  Preb.    of   Wells,  Preb.  of    Bath  and 

Bristol,  V.  of   St.  Mary       Wells 

Magd.    Taunton    (F.    of 

Pembroke  College,  Oxf.) 
Preb.    of    Hereford     and    Hereford 

Chancellor  of  the  Cathe 

dral,  R.  of  Weston-juxta 

Ross,  Non-Abjurur 
[St.  J.]     Esquire 

I  R.  of   Braybrooke,  Chap-    Peter- 
lain    to   Lord   Griffin,  a      borough 
N.-J.  Bishop 

[Fellow,  R.]  of  St.  John's 
Coll.  Camb.,  Complied 
,  Of  St.  Edmund  Hall,  Oxf., 
Assistant-Keeper  of  the 
Bodleian  Library 

P.C.    of    Broomfield    [V.,  I  Bath  and 
R.  and  W.]  Wells 

New  Coll.  Oxf.     [St.  J.] 

St.    John's    Coll.    Camb., 
Complied 

Chaplain  to  Lord  Preston, 
Scholar     of     St.    John's, 

Cambridge 

lVan  of   Worcester,  N.-J.    Worcest'r 

Bishop 
Lecturer  and  C.  of  Cam-    Win- 

bexwell,  ( Complied  cheater 

[St.  J.]  St.  John's  College 

<  >•.!'.  >nl,  (  •ompUi '/ 
Chaplain   t<>  Countess  <>f    Norwich 

Yuriiu  ut  1 1 
[W.l     /'-  nit, ut .         .         .    London 
[W.J     Oxford 


CLEEICAL  AND  LAY   NONJUKOKS 


481 


Hobart,   Thomas, 

M.D. 
Hobson,  Joshua  . 

Hodgson,  Aaron  . 

Holbrooke,  John . 

Holder,  Kichard  . 


Holdsworth, 

ward 
Holford, 

thaniel 
Hollis,  John 
Holmes,  — 


Ed- 


Na- 


Holmes,  — 
Hope,  James 

Hope,  John 

Hopkins,  Edward 
Horton,  Alex. 
Horton,  William  . 

Howard,  Ephraim 

Howell,  John 


Howell,  Laurence 

Howell,  Eobert 
(see  Nowell) 

Howell,  Thomas 
(see  Powell) 

Hughes,  John 


PREFERMENT,   ETC. 


Of 


F.  of  Christ's  Coll.  Camb. 
[St.  J.] 

V.  of  Ail  Saints',  Camb., 
F.  of  St.  John's  Coll. 

Usher  of  Stanstead  Ab- 
bots School,  Herts 

B.  of  Titsey      . 

C.  of  Stanford  Bishop, 
Complied 

Poet — Demy     of 
Coll.  Oxford 

Chaplain    to    Duchess 
Buckingham 

V.  of  Brompton  [W.] 

K.  of  Bustwick  [Pons- 
wicke,  St.  J.]  and  Vicar 
Choral  of  York 

V.  of  North  Clifton  . 
I  '  C.  to  yc  A.B.  [Abp.]  in  ye 

East  Biding  '  [K.  &  K] 
|  C.  of  Easington  [F.  of  St. 
John's,  Camb.,  K.] 

F.  of  Lincoln  Coll.  Oxf. 

K.  of  Kelshall,  Herts 

Master  of  the  Haber- 
dashers' School 

F.  of  Queens'  Coll.  Cam- 
bridge 

B.  of  New  Badnor    . 


Master  of  Epping  School, 
C.  of  Eastwick,  Herts    . 


F.  of  Balliol  Coll.  Oxf, 
and  Chaplain  to  Turkish 
Embassy 


Ely 

Lincoln 

Win- 
chester 
Hereford 


York 

York 

York 
York 

Durham 


Lincoln 
London 


Hereford 
[St.    Da- 
vids, B.] 

Lincoln 


ii 


482 


THE  NONJURORS 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Hughes,  John 

Hunt,  — 
Hutton,  Charles 
Hutton,  John 


Hutton,  Philip     . 
Hutton    [Hulton, 
B.] 

Innes,  Alexander  . 

Islip,  Robert 

Ives,  Jonathan     . 

Jacomb,  Thomas . 

James,  Nicholas  . 
Jebb,  Samuel 


Jebb,  Sir  Richard, 

son  of  the  above 

Jenkin,  Robert     . 


Jenkins,  — . 

Jennens,  Charles . 

Jervi  i,   I  [mnphry 

|(  tervase,  K.] 
Johnson,  Benry  . 


Minor     Canon    of    Peter-    Peter- 


boro'  and  C.  of  Eye 

R.  of  Up-Lyme 

College  Street,  Westmin- 
ster, friend  of  Samuel 
Wesley 

Of  West  Witton 

V.  of  Bolton      . 


R.  of  St.  Martin,  Vintry, 
and  St.  Michael  Royal 

St.  John's  Coll.  Camb. 
[St.  J.],  ord.  by  Gandy, 
1717 

V.  of  St.  Giles',  North- 
ampton 


borough 
Hereford 
Exeter 


Chester 
York 


London 


Peter- 
borough 

Lichfield 


Master  of  the  Free  School, 
Coleshill 

Of  Tregare        .         .         .    Llandaff 

M.D.,  Peterhouse,  Cam- 
bridge, ord.  by  Collier, 
1716 

M.D.,  Licentiate  of  Coll. 
of  Physicians 

F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb., 
V.  of  Waterbeach  .    Ely 

Chanter  of  Chichester 
and  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop,  Complied   .         .  iChichest'r 

'  Sea-captain,  now  a  Peni- 
tent '  [R.] 

Balliol  Coll.  Oxford,  and 
Gopsall  Park,  Leicester 

St.  Alban  Hall,  Oxf.  [W.]    Gloucest'r 


Master     of    Wandsworth    Win- 
School  cheater 

Johnson,  Matthew  0.  of  Kelloe,  Complied      .     Durham 


CLEEICAL  AND   LAY   NONJURORS 


483 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Johnson,  Richard    Master  of  King's   School, 
[William,  L.H.]       Canterbury,  Complied 

Johnson,  Thomas  '  F.  of    St.  John's,   Camb., 

and  V.  of  Madingley  Ely 

Jones,  Barzillai    .  |  Dean     of     Lismore,    and  j  Lismore 
Treasurer  of  Waterford  .  j    and  Wat. 

Jones,  David        .  '  Scholar    of     St.     John's,  \ 
Camb.  [E.] 

Jones,  Henry       .  j  R.  of  Sunningwell     .         .    Win- 
chester 

Jones,  Henry       .    Master    of     Wandsworth  '  Win- 
School  Chester 

Jones,  Eichard     .    Chancellor   of   Diocese  of 
Bangor 

Jones,  Robert       .    V.  of  Cannington  and  C.     Bath  and 
of  Calcott  Wells 

Jones,  Thomas     .    C.  of  Efenechytd       .         .    St.  Asaph 

Jones,  William    .    Treasurer  of  Connor,  and 
Chaplain    to    Bishop    of  i 
Down 

Jones,  —     .         .    C.  of  Lydd   [Lydd,   Bed-  '  Canter- 
ford,  R.]  bury 

Kelly,  George       .  ,  Trinity  College,  Dublin 
Ken,  Thomas       .    Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells 
Kendall,  Nicholas    C.  of  Elwick      .         .         .    Durham 
Kent,  —       .         .    C.  of  Tissington        .         .    Lichfield 
Kenyon,  Roger    .    F.    of    St.     John's    Coll.  , 

Camb,  M.D. 
Kenyon,  Roger    .    St.  John's,    Camb,   A.B, 

'  nee   ultra    progreditur  ' 

[St.  J.] 
Kerrington,  Rich.    R.  of  Tacolneston      .  Norwich 

Kerrington  [Led-    C.  of  Depden    .         .  Norwich 

ington,Wm,R.] 
Kettlewell,  John  .    V.  of  Coleshill  .         .         .    Lichfield 
Keyt,  Thomas      .    R.  of  Binton     .         .         .    Worcest'r 
Killingbecke,  Jno.    F.  of  Jesus  Coll.  Camb. 
King,  Charles      .    Student   [Curate,    R.]    of 

Ch.  Ch,  Chaplain  to  Mr. 
i     Chetwynd 


484 


THE  NONJURORS 


I' I !K FERMENT,   ETO. 


King,  Richard 


K.     of     Marston    Bigott, 
Chaplain  to  Lord  Wey- 
i     mouth 


Kipping,  Richard  Chaplain  to  Bp.  of  Nor- 
wich and  R.  of  Faken- 
ham  (?) 

Kirby,  William  .  R,  of  Wickham  [Whick- 
ham] 

Kirkham,  James  .  ;  R.  of  Wickwar 

Knight,  George    .    C.  of  Keyworth  [W.] 


Lake,  John 
Lake,  Richard 
Lake,  Richard 
Lake,  William     . 

[Lake,  William    . 


Lamb,  —     . 

Lambe,  Seth 
Laurence,    Roger 
Law,  William 

Leake,  John 


Leake,  John 
Leche,  Thomas 
Lee,  Francis 
Lei  ,  William 
h,  John 
Leigh,  —    . 


Bishop  of  Chichester 
R.  of  Avon  Dassett  . 
C.  of  Parham    . 
Son  of  Bp.  of  Chichester, 

Complied 
[F.,    R.]    of    St.    John's, 

Camb.    [St.    J.],    query 

same  as  above] 
V.  of  Stillington,  Penitent 

[K.] 
V.  of  Ealing,  Non-Abjuror 
N.-J.  Bishop 
F.    of     Emmanuel     Coll. 

Camb. 
;  Lecturer    of     St.     Giles', 

Cripplegate,      and      St. 

Michael's,  Queenhythe 
!  Hart  Hall,  Oxf.[H.],  query 

same  as  above 
i  V.  of   Foxton,   F.    of    St. 

John's  Coll.  Camb. 
M.D.,    F.    of    St.    John's 

Coll.  Oxford 
Dyer       in       SpitalfieMfl, 

brother  of  the  above 
1 V.      of      Edenhall-with- 

I  langwathb? 
Choirmaster  [Chief  Mini- 
ster,   \[.'\    of    St.    Mary 

<  »\  i>.  Efouthwark 


Bath  and 
Wells 

Norwich 


Durham 

Gloucest'r 
York 


Lichfield 
Norwich 


York 
London 

London 


Ely 


Carlisle 

Rochester 


CLERICAL  AND  LAY  NONJUEOES 


485 


Leslie,  Charles     . 

L 'Estrange,      Sir 

Eoger 

Lewis,  John 
Lewis,  John 


:{ 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Lewis,  Thomas   . 
Lightfoot,  Thos. . 

Lindsay,  David    . 

Lindsay,  John     . 

Lloyd,  John 
Lloyd,  Eichard    . 
Lloyd,  William    . 
Long,  Thos.,  sen. 

Long,  Thos.,  jun. 

Lowndes,  Ealph  . 
Lowndes,  Kalph . 

Lowth,  Simon     . 


Lowthian,  Rich.  . 
Lowthorp,  John  . 
Ludlam,  — 

Mackintosh,  Alex. 


Chancellor  of  Connor 
Licenser     of     the     Press 

[St.  J.] 
C.      of      Bolston")  Query 
Of     Jesus      Coll.  >    same 

Oxford  J     man 

Scholar    [R.]     of     Magd. 

Hall,  Oxford 
V.  of  Eoxby      . 


C.    of    Croydon    [White- 
chapel,  K.],  Complied 
N.-J.  Minister  of  Trinity 
Chapel,  Aldersgate  Street 
E.  of  Llangar    . 
C.  of  Bridstow  and  Yarpole 
Bishop  of  Norwich 
j  Preb.     of     Exeter,    Non- 
|     Abjuror 
j  E.  of  Whimple  and  Preb. 

of  Exeter 
j  E.  of  Eccleston 
Of  Lea  Hall,  Middlewich, 

Penitent 
V.  of  Harbledown,  E.    of 
Cosmas     Blean,     Dean- 
elect  of  Eochester 
I  A.B.,   St.  John's,    Camb., 
;     ord.  by  Spinckes,  1722 
•  E.  of  Coston,  near  Melton 

Mowbray 
V.  of  Dalby  Magna,  near 
Melton  Mowbray 

E.  of  Woodmansterne 


Maddison,  Chas.  .    V.  of  Chester-le- Street 
Major,  George     .  j  Emman.  Coll.  Camb.  [W.] 
Malabar     [Malla-  |  C.  of  Cottenham 
barr,  W.] 


Connor 


St.  Davids 
(Hereford 
now) 


York 
[Chester, 

W.] 
London 


St.  Asaph 
Hereford 

Exeter 

Exeter 

Chester 
Chester 

Canter- 
bury 


Lincoln 
Lincoln 


Win- 
chester 
Durham 


Ely 


486 


THE  NONJURORS 


Mallory,   Thomas 
Manly,  Kobert     . 
Manton,  — . 
March,  John 
Marsh,  —    . 
Marston,  Edward 

Marten,    William 

[Hugh,K.] 
Martin,  John 

Martyn  [Mason, 
W.],  Thomas 

Massey,  Middle- 
ton 

Maston,  Edward . 

Mattaire,  Michael 
Mauliverer,  John 

Maurice  [Morris, 
L.H.][Morrice, 
R.j\- 

Mawburn,  Luke  . 
Mawman,  Tim.  . 
Maxwell,  William 
Meaux,  —   . 

Metcalfe,  — 

Milles,  Richard    . 

Millington,  James 
Milncr,  John 

blingay,  —  . 
Minors,.secMynors 
Mitchell,  Michael 
Montgomery, 

Robert 
Moor,  John. 


PBHFBBMBNT,  ETC. 

R.  of  Mobberley 
R.  of  Powderham 
V.  of  Crook  [W.]       . 
V.  of  Long  Compton 
[W.]        ■        •       ... 
C.  of  Rushton,  Complied  . 

of     Hart 


Chester 
Exeter 
Carlisle 
Worcest'r 
Ely 
Peter- 
borough 


Vice-Principal 

Hall,  Oxford 
Preb.  of  Sarum  and  R.  of    Sarum 

Melcombe  Horsey 
I  R.  of  Holme  Lacy  [R-  and    Hereford 

L.  H.] 
A   Keeper  of    Ashmolean 

Museum,  Oxford,  B.N.C. 
V.  of  Dalby  Parva,  near    Lincoln 

Melton  Mowbray 
[H.  and  St.  J.],  but  query? 
[F.    of,    W.]    Magdalene 

Coll.  Cambridge 
Minor  Canon  of  Worcester   Worcest'r 

and  C.  of  Claines 

R.  of  Crayke     .         .         .    York 

N.-J.  Bishop 

Min.  of  Wapping  Chapel    London 

Of       Woodstock,       No?i-    Oxford 
Abjuror 

V.  of  Voles  [St.  Paul's  ?]    Canter- 
Cray  bury 

V.  of  Ridge,  near  Barnet,    London 
Comjylied 

Draper  of  Shrewsbury 

Preb.  of  Ripon  and  V.  of    York 

Leeds 

C.  of  Holveston         .         .    Norwicl 

V.  of  Pinchbeck         .         .    Lincoln 
York 

V.  of  Kustington       .         .    Chichest'r 


CLERICAL  AND   LAY  NONJURORS 


487 


NAME 

PREFERMENT,  ETC. 

DIOOESE 

Moor,  Jonathan  . 

Schoolmaster     at     Long 
Melford 

Norwich 

More,  Ingram 

V.  of  Mumby  and  Strubby 

Lincoln 

Morgan,  Eobert  . 

Student  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxf., 
Complied 

Morrice  [Maurice, 

E.  of  Bangor-Monachorum 

Bangor 

E.],  Hugh 

Morse,  William    . 

E.  of  Llanwarne 

Hereford 

Moy,  Anthony 

Chaplain  to  Lord  Ferrars 
of  Chartley 

Munsey,  Kobert  . 

E.  of  Bawdeswell 

Norwich 

Mynors,     Wil- 

C.  of  Shoreditch 

London 

loughby 

Nash,  Gawen 

Petty  Canon  of  Norwich 
and  V.  of  Melton 

Norwich 

Nash,  John 

F.  of  Pembroke  Hall,  Cam- 
bridge 

Naylor,  John 

F.    of    St.    John's     Coll. 
Camb. 

Nelson,  Kobert    . 

Complied.     Esquire 

Nelson,  —  . 

V.  of—    . 

York 

Newcourt,  Eichd. 

Eegistrar  of  the  Bishop's 
Court 

London 

Newman,  John    . 

Trinity    Coll.    Cambridge 
[St.  J.] 

Newmarsh,  Tim.  . 

N.-J.  Bishop 

Newson,  Stephen 

E.  of  Hawkedon 

Norwich 

Newton,  George  . 

E.  of   Cheadle  and  V.  of 
Prestbury 

Chester 

Nicholls,Matthew 

C.  of  Eggesford 

Exeter 

Nicholls,  Kichard 

V.  of  Welton    . 

Peter- 
borough 

Nixon,  Eobert 

Ord.  by  Gandy,  1717 

Norres,  Ealph 

V.  of  South  Littleton 

Worcest'r 

North,  Eoger 

Steward    to    the    See    of 
Canterbury,   son   of  the 
4th  Lord  North 

Nowell,  Eobert    . 

V.  of  Seaford  and  Bishop- 
stone 

Chichest'r 

Nutting,  John 

Pembroke  Coll.  Oxford 

488 


THE  NONJURORS 


Oakely,  Jeremy    . 

Oakes,  John 
Oldham,  Kichard . 

Oldham,  —  . 

Onley,  Humphry 
[Vanogden,  W.] 
Orme,  Kobert 
Osborn,  —  . 
Osbourne,  William 

Otway,  Charles 
Owen,  John 
Owen,  Michael 


I'KKIKKMENT,   ETC. 


Palmer,  —  . 
Paman,  Henry 

Panting,  Henry  . 

Parker,  Samuel    . 

Parr,Bartholomew 
Pattrick,  Jerman . 
Peake,  James 

Pearce,  —    . 

Pearson,  Richard 

Pearson,  Matthew 

Peck,  Francis 
Peck,  Samuel 
PerkuD  ,  Joi  i  pfa  . 
Perne,  John 


R.  of  Sutton 

V.  of  Whitegate 

R.  of  Streatham,  F.  of  St. 

John's,  Cambridge 
Chaplain    to   the   Earl  of 

Chesterfield 
R.  of  Little  Budworth 

V.  of  Wouldham,  Penitent 

C.  of  Aldgate    . 

'  Chaplain     to    my    Lord 

Weymouth '  [R.]    . 
Doctor  of  Laws  [K.] 
R.  of  Tuddenham 
V.  of  Langhorne  and  R.  of 

Eglwys 


Win- 
chester 
Chester 
Ely 

Lichfield 

Chester 

Rochester 
London 
Bath  and 
Wells 

:  Norwich 
S.Davids 


Hereford 
Canter- 
bury 


M.D.,  Master  of  the  Facul- 
ties to  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury 

R.  of  St.  Martin's,  Worces-  j  Worcest'r 
ter,and  Upton-on-Severn 

Son  of  the  Bishop  of  Ox- 
ford, Complied  (?) 

V.  of—    . 

C.  (if  FLiddcnham 

V.  of  Bowdon  (F.  of  Magd. 
Coll.  Cambridge) 

Attorney  of  Took's  Court, 
I  -Minion 

R.of  St.  Michael's,  Crooked 
Lane 

F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb., 
Com/>//(  </ 

Trinity  Coll.  Cambridge 

Trin.  Coll.  Camb.  [St.  J.] 
-,  Penitent  |  K.|      . 

P.  of  Peterhouse,  Camb. 
[St.  J.] 


Exeter 

Ely 

Chester 


London 


Gloucest'r 


CLERICAL  AND   LAY  NONJURORS 


489 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Pert,  Arthur 

Philips,  John 

Philips,  Vincent  . 
Phillips,  Stephen   \ 

Phillips,  William  | 

Pickering  [Pucker- 
ing,   Ch.    Sh.], 
John 

Pickering,  John  . 

Pierce,  John 
Pigeon,  —  . 

Pinchbeck,  Martin 


Pincock,  Thomas 
Pincocke,  William 
Pine,  William 

Pinsent,  —  . 

Pitts,  John  . 

Pocklington, 

Charles 
Podmore,  Thomas 

Polwhele,  Thomas 

Potinger  [Pottin- 
ger,  E.  and  L. 
H.],  Daniel 

Powell  [Howell,  E, 
&  L.  H.],  Thos. 

Powell,  Timothy  . 


[F.  of,  L.  H.]  Queens'  Coll. 

Cambridge 
Student  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxford 

[R.] 
Trin.  Coll.  Oxford 
Scholar   of    Trinity    Coll. 

Cambridge 
F.  of  Cath.   Hall,  Camb., 

and  C.  of  Long  Melford 
Schoolmaster   of    Middle- 

wich 

V.      of      Ferring,    South 

Heighton,  and  Westham 
Ord.  by  Collier,  1725 
C.  of  St.  Andrew's,  Under- 

shaft 
C.  of  Freiston  and  School- 
master    at    Butterwick, 

Penitent 
Usher  of  Preston  School  . 
Senior  F.  of  B.N.C.  Oxf. 
[Student  of,  L.  H.]  Ch.  Ch. 

Oxford 
Undergrad.   of  St.  John's 

Coll.  Cambridge 
E.    of    St.  Lawrence  [St. 

Giles,  St.  J.],  Norwich 
E.   of  Brington,  Bythorn, 

and  Old  Weston 
Master      of     Millington's 

Hospital,  Shrewsbury 
V.    of  Newlyn  [Newland, 

E.  and  L.  H.] 
E.  of  Nettleton 


C.  of  New  Eadnor    . 

V.  of  St.  Cleers  and  E.  of 
Eobeston  West 


Norwich 
Chester 


Chichest'r 

London 
Lincoln 

Chester 


Norwich 

Lincoln 
(now  Ely) 


Exeter 
Lincoln 

Hereford 
S.  Davids 


490 


THE  NONJURORS 


I'KKFKKMENT,   ETC. 


Pownoll,  Edward 
Pretty,  Edward    . 


Price,  Henry 


Price,  Kenrick  . 
Prichard,  John  . 
Prichard,  William 
Pulford,  —  . 

Kawlinson,  Rich. 

Rawlinson,  Thos., 
brother  of  the 
above 

Redmayne,  Peter 

Eich,  Samuel,  Dr. 
Richards,  William 


Richardson,  John 

Richardson,  Sam.  > 

Richardson,  —    .  j 
Bickaring,     John 
[R.]  (see  Picker- 
ing) 
Roberts,  Lewis    . 

Roberts,  Thomas 


Robinson, 

Nicholas 
Elobinson,  Wm.  . 
Bob  -nI  R.&L.H.] 
Bogerson,  Thus.  . 


Of  Shottesbrooke  [EL] 
R.  of  Little  Cornard  [Cor- 

neath,    R.    and    St.  J.], 

Penitent 
V.  and  Preb.  of  St.  Asaph 

and      Schoolmaster      of 

Ruthin 
N.-J.  Bishop 
Of  Winforton    . 
V.  of  Eglwyswrw,  Penitent 
Herts        . 

St.    John's   Coll.   Oxford, 
N.-J.  Bishop 


Norwich 


St.  Asaph 


Hereford 
S.  Davids 
Lincoln 


[Fellow,  W.]  of  Trin.  Coll. 
Camb. 

[L.H.]      .... 

R.  of  Helmdon  (and  Lec- 
turer of  St.  Andrew's, 
Newcastle) 

R.  of  North  Luffenham    . 

C.  of  Little  Bradley,  Com- 
plied 
C.  of  Great  Thurlow 


Bristol 
Peter- 
borough 

Peter- 
borough 
Norwich 

Norwich 


V.  of  West  Pirle  and  Bed-  Chichest 
dington 

Minor    Canon    and  R.  of   Worcest'r 

St.  Nicholas'  [St.  Giles',  j 

R.  and  L.  H.] 
M.D.  [St.  J.] 

Gloucest'r 

V.  of  Stonehouse 

R.  of  Ampton,  Suffolk      .    Norwich 


CLERICAL  AND  LAY  NONJURORS 


491 


NAME 

PREFERMENT,  ETO. 

DIOOESE 

Eokeby,  Francis  . 

Undergrad.  of   St.  John's 
Coll.      Camb.      [son    of 
Major  E.  Eokeby,  E.] 

Eoper,  Francis     . 

F.    of    St.    John's     Coll. 
Camb.  Preb.   of  Ely,  E. 
of  Northwold,  and  Canon 

Ely 

of  Norwich     . 

Norwich 

Eoss,  Thomas 

E.  of  Eede 

Norwich 

Eoss,  Thomas 

E.  of  Scalby,  or  Scawby   . 

York 

Eoss,  Thomas 

E.    of    Hunmanby    [W.], 
Penitent 

York 

Eotheram,  — 

[W.]          .... 

Bath  and 
Wells 

Eowe,  — 

Ord.  by  Collier,  1716 

Eussell,  Eichard  . 

Univ.  Coll.  Oxford  [St.  J.] 

Eutter,  John 

M.A.,  ord.  by  Collier,  1716 

Saffyn,  Eichard    . 

V.  of  Berkeley  . 

Gloucest'r 

Sagar,  Seager,  or 

B.N.C.  Oxford 

Seagar 

Sage,  Elisha 

[W.]          .         .         .         . 

Bristol 

Sagg,  Thomas 

Beader  in  Christ    Church 
[the  chief  church,K.],  Hull 

York 

Salmon,  Nath. 

C.  of  Westmill,  Herts 

Lincoln 

Salter,  Abraham  . 

V.  of  Edwardstone    . 

Norwich 

Sancroft,  William 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury 

Sanderson,  James 

St.   John's    Coll.    Camb., 
Penitent,  E. 

Sanderson,  Eobt. 

Scholar  of   St.  John's  Coll. 
Camb. 

Sandys,  Samuel  . 

V.  of   Willoughby   (F.  of 
Peterhouse,  Camb.) 

Worcest'r 

Saunders,  John    . 

Trin.  Coll.  Camb.   [St.  J.] 

Scandrett,  John  . 

V.  of  Madeley  [Madley,  E. 
and  L.  H.] 

Hereford 

Schmid  (Smith)   . 

Preacher  to  Walloon  Con- 

Canter- 

gregation at  Sandwich     . 

bury 

Sclater,  William  . 

V.  of  Brampton  Speke 

Exeter 

Scott,  —      . 

C.  of  Highgate  [W.] 

London 

Scrivener,  Henry 

[Charles,  E.],  F.  of  Pemb. 
Hall,  Camb. 

492 


THE  NONJURORS 


Seaman,  Christo- 
pher 
Sefton,  —    . 
Seller,  Abednego . 
Sharp,  Isaac 

Shaw,  John 

Sheldon,  Ealph    . 

Sheridan,  William 
Sherlock,  William 


Sherwell,  John    . 

Shrawly,  John     . 

Sims,  William  (see 

Sym) 
Skelton,  Bernard. 
Slater  [Blatter,  R.] 
Sloper,  William  . 

Smith,  Charles     . 

Smith,  —    . 
Smith,  George     . 

Smith,  Henry 
Stniili,  James 
Smith       [Smyth, 
K.],  Thomas     . 
Bnatt,  William     . 

Boames,  Moses    . 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


R.  of  Winton  and  Little 
Snoring 

[H.] 

V.  of  St.  Charles,  Plym'th 

C.  of  Stepney  (F.  of  Magd. 
Coll.  Camb.) 

V.  of  Carleton  and  Petty 
Canon  of  Norwich 

Steward  (Auditor  of  Ac- 
counts) (?)  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxf. 

Bp.  of  Kilmore  and  Ardagh 

Master  of  the  Temple, 
Lecturer  at  St.  Dunstan's- 
in-the-West,  and  V.  of 
Therfield,  Complied 

Reader  at  Covent  Garden 
[W.] 

Chaplain  to  Lord  Lexing- 
ton [W.] 


R.  of  Cantley    . 
V.  of  Chatteris 
Schoolmaster  of  Wantage, 

Penitent 
V.  of  Sompting  and  R.  of 

Coombe .... 
V.  of  Little  Packington  . 
St.    John's   Coll.     Camb., 

N.-J.  Bishop 
Canon  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxford 
i;.  of  Lound,  Complied 
P.  of  Magd.  Coll.  Oxford, 

Tnl).  of  lkytosbury 
Preb.    of   Chichester,  and 

V.  of  Cuokfield 
R.  of  Broughton 


Norwich 


Exeter 
London 

Norwich 


Bouthcomb,Lewia    li.  of  Rose  Ami,  Penitent 
Bouthcomb,Lewifl, 
jnn. 


London 
Hereford 


Norwich 

Ely 

Sarum 

Chichest'r 

Lichfield 


Norwich 

Sarum 
Chichest'r 

Peter- 
borough 
Exeter 


CLEEICAL  AND   LAY  NONJUROES 


493 


Speed,  George 

Spinckes, 
thaniel 


PREFERMENT,   ETC. 


DIOCESE 


Na- 


Squib,  Laurence  . 
Stampe,  Thomas. 
Standish,  Ealph  . 
Sterling,  — 
Stone,  Thomas  . 
Strachan.William 

Street,  —     . 

Sutton,  Gilbert  (?) 
Symmes  [Simms, 

L.  H.] 
Symmes      [Sims, 

E.] 
Talbot,  Andrew  . 

Talbot,  John 


Taylor,  Kalph      . 

Thomas,  Samuel . 

Thomas,  William  ! 
Thomas,  — 

Thomkinson, 

Thomas 
Thornly,  Edmund 

Thornton,      Wil-  I 

Ham 
Thurkettle,  Saml. 
Tisdale,  Richard  . 


Master  of   the   School  in    London 

St.  Mary  Axe  [W] 
Preb.  of  Sarum,  R.  of  St.  ;  Sarum 

Martin's,  Salisbury,  N.-J. 

Bishop. 
R.  of  Stanton  St.  John's  .    Oxford 
R.  of  Langley,  Penitent    .    Sarum 
R.  of  —    .         .         .         .    Chester 
Balliol  Coll.  Oxford  [H.] 
R.  of  Hempstead       .         .  '<  Norwich 
[F.  of,  L.  H.]  Balliol  Coll. 

Oxford 
•  C.  and  Schoolmaster  near  ;  Bath  and 

the  Bath '  Wells 

Trin.  Coll.  Cambridge 
R.  of  Langton  .         .         ..  York 

V.  of  Chislet     .         .         .    Canter- 
bury 
R.  of  Southstoke       .         .    Bath  and 

Wells 
R.    of    Fretherne    (F.    of  j  Gloucest'r 

Peterhouse,  Camb.), N.-J, 

Bishop,  Complied 
R.  of  Severn-Stoke,  N.-J.    Worcest'r 

Bishop 
Preb.  of  Wells  and  V.  of    Bath  and 

Chard     ....       Wells 
Bishop  of  Worcester 
Canon    of    Exeter,    Non-    Exeter 

Abjuror 
F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb.,  V.    Ely 

of  Holy  Trinity,  Camb. 
C.    of    Bury  [Littleboro',    < 

L.  H.]    . 
Principal   of    Hart    Hall, 

Oxford,  Non-Abjuror 
R.  of  Littleton.  .         .    London 

R.  of  Felthorpe  and  Tros-    Norwich 

trey,    and    Chaplain    to 

Bishop  of  Norwich 


494 


THE  NONJUEOKS 


Traffles,  Kichard, 
D.C.L. 

Trumbull,  Charles 


Tudway,  — 


Turner,  Francis  . 
Turner,  Thomas  . 
Tutt,  Bobert 

Urry,  John 

Vanogden    . 
Verdon,  Thomas  . 

Vincent,  — 
Vincent,  — 

Wace,  Francis  . 
Wagstaffe,  John  . 
Wagstaffe,    Thos. 


Wagstaffe,  Thos. 
(son  of  the  above) 
Walker,  Lucius  . 
Wall,  Henry 
Wase,  Christopher 
Watson,  George  . 
Watson,  John 

ber,  Kichard 
Wei  ton,  Kichard  . 

West,  Thomas 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


New  College,  Oxford 
[Ant.  Wood] 

K.  of  Stisted  in  Essex, 
Hadleigh  in  Suffolk,  and 
Chaplain  to  Archbishop 
Sancroft 

Mus.B.,  and  Organist  of 
King's  Coll.  Camb.,  Com- 
plied 

Bishop  of  Ely 

Archd.  of  Essex,  and  Preb. 

Sub-Dean  of  Salisbury 

Student  of  Ch.  Ch.  Oxf. 

(See  '  Onley,  Humphry  ') 
R.  of  Great  Snoring 

F.  of  St.  John's,  Camb. 
Curate  of  —     [W.] 
C.  of  Sulhampstead.   [W.] 

K.  of  Blakeney 
R.  of  Little  Wenlock 
Chancellor  of  Lichfield 
R.  of  St.  Margaret  Pattens, 

London,  N.-J.  Bishop 
Keeper       of      Nonjurors' 

Church  Registers 
R.  of  Stokesley  [W.] 
Chpln.  to  Countess  of  Kent 
Esquire  Bedell  at  Oxford 
R.  of  Millbrook,  Bucks     . 
R.  of  Saltfleetby  St.  Cle- 
ment's 
R.  of  G-lemsford,  Complied 
R.   of  Whitechapel,  N.-J. 

Bishop 
I;,  of  Childrey  [Childrew, 
U.  and  L.  H.] 


Norwich 


London 
Sarum 


Norwich 

Lincoln 
Sarum 

Norwich 
Hereford 
Lichfield 
London 


York 


Lincoln 
Lincoln 

Norwich 
London 

Chester  ? 

[U.  &W. 
&L.H.] 
Oxford 


CLEEICAL  AND   LAY  NONJUKOES 


495 


PREFERMENT,  ETC. 


Weybergh,  Jeffrey 

Whatton,William 
White,  Thomas  . 
Whitehead,  —     . 

Whiting,  — 
Wigmore,  John    . 

Willcox,  Giles 

Willet,  — 
Williams,  Daniel . 
Wilson,  Edward  . 
Wilson,  John 

Wilson,  Kobert    . 

Wilson,  Thomas  . 
Wilson,  Thomas 

(son  of  the  above) 

Winchilsea,Hene- 

age  Finch,  4th 

Earl  of 

Winford,  Edward 

Wingfield,  — 

Winship[p],  Geo. 

Wolley,     Charles 
[Wooley, 
Samuel,  R.] 

Wood,  Henry 

Wood,  John 

Woodroffe,  Gabriel 
Woodward,   John 

Wooton,  Henry    . 


[C.  of,  R]  Queen's  College, 

Oxford 
Chap,  to  Earl  of  Rutland 
Bishop  of  Peterborough 
St.    Mary    Hall,    Oxford, 

ord.  by  Spinckes,  1718 
St.  John's  College,  Camb. 
Queens'   Coll.  Camb.,  ord. 

by  Gandy,  1727 
B.    of    Bixley  and   C.    of 

Bungay 
Of  Tattershall  [W.] 
Jesus  Coll.  Oxford  [St.  J.] 
K.  of  Blatchington 
B.  at  Northampton  ?  [W.] 


Vicar-Choral,  York,  C. 

Drypool,  &c. 
R.  of  Arrow 


of 


B.  of  Harpsden 

Of  Canterbury,  refused  to 

take  M.A.  degree 
Preb.  of  York  and  B.   of 

Malton 
B.  of  North  Somercoates, 

Complied 

Chaplain     to    Mr.    Chol- 

mondeley  of  Holford 
Chaplain   at   Ch.    Ch.  (?), 

London 
V.  of  Felsted    . 
F.   of   Peterhouse,  Camb. 

[Complied,  St.  J.] 
St.    John's    Coll.     Camb. 

[St.  J.] 


Lincoln 


Norwich 

Lincoln 

Chichest'r 
Peter- 
borough 
York 

Worcest'r 


Oxford 
Canter- 
bury 
York 

Lincoln 


Chester 
London 
London 


49G 


THE  NONJURORS 


Worsley,  Edward 

Worthington, 
John 

Worthington, 
Thomas 

Wortley,  Bartho- 
lomew 

Wright,  Matthew 

Wright,  Thomas  . 

Wynne,  Hugh 


Yapp,  Abraham   . 
Sir 


PREFERMENT,   ETO. 


Yarborough 

Thomas 
Yates   or   Yeates,  ;  C.  of  Lymm 

John 


R.  of  Gatcombe,  Isle  of 
Wight 

V.  of  Offenham,  School- 
master of  Evesham  (F. 
of  Peterhouse,  Camb.) 

Magd.  Hall  [Ch.  Ch.,  K], 
Oxford,  Non-Abjuror 

F.  of  Caius  Coll.  Camb. 

C.  of  Warmingham  . 

V.  of  Wymondham  (F.  of 

St.  John's,  Camb.) 
F.  of  All  Souls',  Oxford, 

Chancellor  of  Diocese  of 

St.  Asaph 

Precentor  of  Durham  and 

C.  of  Wilton  Gilbert 
Of  Snaith  Hall,  Yorks 


Yorke,  John 


Zinzano,  Nicholas 


Vicar-Choral  of  York  and 
R.  of  St.  Peter,  of  St. 
Belfry's  [St.  J.],  of  St. 
Michael-le-Belfry 

R.  of  St.  Martin  Outwich 


Win- 
chester 
Worcest'r 


Chester 
Norwich 


St.  Asaph 
Durham 

Chester 
York 

London 


SCOTLAND. 

The  Scotch  Nonjurors  include  the  great  majority  of 
I  be  Scotch  Episcopal  Church.  It  seems  to  me  that  all 
or  none  should  be  given,  and,  as  it  is  quite  impossible  to 
give  ;il I.  I  have  given  none  in  the  above  list.  The  names 
of  the  chief  Leaden  will  be  found  in  Chapter  X. 


497 


INDEX 


Abjuration  Oath,  2,  10,  64, 139,  192, 

258,  315,  348 
'  Account   of  Church   Government,' 

Brett's,  402 
Act  of  Settlement,  2,  10 
'  Address   to   Persons  of    State  and 

Quality,'  Nelson's,  253 
Allhallows  Barking  Church,  93 
Altar-piece  in  Whiteehapel  Church, 

347 
America    and    Nonjuring    Bishops, 

349, 369-371 
Anne,  Queen,  11,  65,  73,  202,  218, 

239,  427 
Anointing  the  Sick,  354,  357,  358-9 
Apographum  consecrationis,  T.  Wag- 
staffe,  116  n. 
J.  Collier,  119 
H.  Doughty,  313 
Apostolical  Constitutions,  The,  296, 

358-9 
Arsenius,  Metropolitan  of  Thebais, 

452-3,  457 
Ashton,  John,  71 
Atterbury,  Francis,  336 


Bailey,  Thomas,  147,  181 
Baker,   Thomas,   46,  56,  189,   1 

281,  409,  416 
Balliol  College,  Oxford,  183,  342 


324, 


Bedford,   Hilkiah,   17,    111 

198-203,  217,  274,  311,  320 

324 
Bedford,    Thomas,    290,    320, 

339-340,  409 
Bettenham,  James,  263 
Beveridge,  William,  5,  28,  168 
Billers,  John,  195-7 
Bingham,  Joseph,  352-3 
Bisbie,  Nathanael,  40,  224-6 
Bishops,  Imprisonment  of  the  seven 

23,  24,  25,  26,  31,  40,  48,  58,  61 

71,75 


Bishops,  Consecration   of,   by  Non- 
jurors   (in    1693-4), 
29-31,  84-91 
(in  1713),  118  et  seq. 
(in  1715-6),  137  et  seq. 
(in  1720-1),  311 
(later),  312-25 
Nonjuring,  in  Scotland,  420 
at   large   in   Scotland,  436  et 
seq.,  445 
Blaekbourne,    John,  283,  306,  308, 

314-6 
Bonwicke,  Ambrose,  the  elder,  255-6, 

262 
Bonwicke,    Ambrose,   the    younger, 
197,  219,  2C6-8 
Life  of,  410 
Boothe,  Charles,  373 
Bowdler  family,  325,  327 
Bowdler,  John,  18 
Bowdler,  Thomas,  254 
Bowyer,   William,   the    elder,    221, 

261-2,  266,  315,  406 
Bowyer,  William,  the  younger,  257, 

262-3,  334 
Brett  family,  325 

Brett,  Thomas,  the  elder,  20,  138- 
147,    151,  211,    288,    297, 
353,  356,  395,  401 
on  the  Usages,  302-5 
and     the     Eastern    Church, 
453-4 
Brett,   Thomas,   the    younger,   307, 

317 
Brokesby,  Francis,  206-7,  232,  382 
'  Life  of  Dodwell,'  by,  237-8, 

410 
'  History   of   Government  of 
Primitive  Church,'  by,  409 
Browne,  P.  J.,  363-4 
Browne,  Thomas,  198 
Bull,  George,  245 

'Life  of,'  by  Nelson,  410 


498 


THE   NONJURORS 


Burnet,  Gilbert,  ■",,  L6,  84,  66,  100  e t 
L60-1,  196,  847,  122 

Byrom,  John,  332,  312   1,859,863    I 
'Remains,'  410 


Casiumpge  Nonjurors,  180  et  seq. 
Campbell,    Archibald,    118-9,    312, 
351,  421,  440-1,  445-6 
'  Middle  State,'  402-4 
Carte,  Samuel,  127,  283 
Carte,  Thomas,  127,  335 

'History     of     England,'    by, 
408-9 
Cartwright,  Thomas,  24 
Cartwright,  William,  290,  364  etseq. 
'  Case  in  View,'  Dodwell's,  4(5,  120, 

150-1,  235 
'  Case  in  View,  now  in  Fact,'  Dod- 
well's, 120,  149,  150,  235 
'Case  of   Allegiance,'  Sherlock's,  5, 

115 
'  Case  of  Reason,'  Arc,  Law's,  398 
'  Case  of  Resistance,'  Sherlock's,  5 
'  Case  of  Schism  in  Church  of  Eng-    j 
land  Fairlv  Stated,'  L.  Howell's,   j 
214-5 
'  Case  of  the  Regale  and  Pontificate,' 

Leslie's,  91 
'  Cautionary  Discourse  of   Schism,' 

Dodwell's,  232 
Cave,  William,  219,  382,  401 
'  Character  of  a  Jacobite,'  13,  14 
Charity  Schools,  266  6 
Cherry,  Francis,  157,  101,  204,  231, 

288-240,  241  et  seq 
Chevalier,  the  old,  11,  12, 121, 161-2, 

307-8,  338,  341,  408, 446 
Chevalier,  the  young,  11,  325,  338 
Cholmondelcy,  Francis,  271 
Chrism   in  Confirmation,  354,  357, 

B66 
Cibber,  Colley,  12-13,  19  et 
Clandestine  Consecrations,  90 
Clarendon,  Henry,  second   Marl  of, 
86,  B6,  167,221,  271-2,282 
'  Diary  '  of,  49,  160,  221,  272 
'Clarendon's  History  of  the  Rebel- 
lion, •  n 
Clayton,  John,  -".to,  ices.  848 
Cock,  John,  290 

7ffliam,220  l 
Collier,  Jeremy,  B,  19,21,119,  L21  9, 
217,  268,  288 
biography  of,  no 
on   Hi     '  Si  b 
in-. 


Collier,  Jeremy,  '  Short  View  of  the 
English  Stage,'  415-6 
on  the  Usages,  295-6,  304-5 
and     the     Eastern    Church, 

453-4 
'  Ecclesiastical      History     of 

Great  Britain,'  407-8 
'  Desertion    Discussed,   The,' 
123 
'  Collier's  (Mr.)  Desertion  Discussed,' 

293,  315 
Communion    office  of    1718,   293-5, 
301 
Preface,  302 

Tracts  for  and  against,  303 
'  Companion    to    the    Festivals  and 
Fasts'    (Nelson),    154,   206,    253, 
382-3 
'  Compleat  Collection  of  Devotions  ' 

(Deacon),  357-9 
'  Compounders  '     and     '  Non-Com- 

pounders,'  216 
Compton,  Henry,  57,  73,  422-3,  435 
'  Conference     between    Junius    and 

Gerontius  '  (Gandy),  149-51 
'  Constitution      of       the      Catholic 

Church  '  (Hickes),  91,  151,  402 
Controversial   Works   of  Nonjurors, 
392-400 
Leslie,  392-4 
Hickes,  394-5 
Brett,  896  6 
Spinckes,  396 
Dodwell  and  Howell,  397 
Law,  397-400 
Convention  Parliament.  B6 
Convocation  of  Oxford  University,  4 
Cosin,  John,  32,  163 
Cotton,  Sir  John,  176 
Country  Gentlemen,  240.  270 
Country     Services     for     Nonjurors, 

288-290 
Crewe,  Nathaniel,  164,  168,  189-190 
Cro  thwaite,  Thomas,  178-9 


Dbaoor,  Thomas.  288,  290,  B06,  807, 
B82,     888,     B48,    864  68 
B78 

;  on  of  [ndolgenoe,  James's, 

72,  7C  9  1.  L89  90 

•  Defenes    of    our   Constitution    in 

Church  and  Stale'  (N.  Marshall), 
no.  184 

•  Deprived     Fathers,    The;1    28  88, 

107,  276, 309 

n   l»i   ens  I  .l.Thc'  (< 

r_>:; 


INDEX 


499 


Digby,  Lord,  241 

Divine  Right,  The  Doctrine  of,  3-6 
'  Doctrine  of  Church  of   Rome  con- 
cerning Purgatory '  (Deacon) ,  355-0 
'  Doctrine  of  the  Cross,  The,'  6  n.,  65 
Dodwell,  Henry,  9,  63,  140,  149-51, 
157,  160,  206,  219,  229-38,  251, 
391,   397.      (Works    under   then- 
titles.) 
Domestic  Chaplains,  123,  131,  133, 

170,  312 
Doughty,  Henry,  313-4 
Downes,  Theophilus,  183,  202 
Drake,  Samuel,  337 


Gibson,  Edmund,  109 
Giffarcl,  William,  58,  88 
Gloucester,  Death  of  Duke  of,  10 
Gordon,    Robert,    263,   284,   323-8, 

338,  370 
Gower,  Humphry,  188-9 
'  Grand  and  Important  Question  '  (on 

Church  Communion),  284-6 
Granville,  Denis,  5,  163-9,  312 
Grascome,  Samuel,  207-11,  283 
Greek  Church,  The,  173 
Griffin,  John,  312-3,  454 


Eaebery,  Matthias,  211-3,  283,  306 
Eastern     Church,      Correspondence 
with,  313,  451-65 
Brett's  account  of,  453-4 
Edmund  Hall  Nonjurors,  St.,  181 
E.Ikwv  $a<rt\tiffi,  Wagstarfe  on,  114 
Ellis,  James,  264-5 
Ely   House    Chapel,   49,    160,    172, 

282 
Episcopal  College  (Scotland),  445-('< 
Erastianism  in  England,  7,  247 

in  Scotland,  446 
Essentialists    (Usagers),    300,    301, 

303,  332,  337 
Eucharist,   Sacrificial    character  of 

the,  292,  322,  383 
Evelyn,  John,  276 


Falconer,  John,  439-40,  444 
Fenton,  Elijah,  13,  186,  258-9 
Fenwick  Plot,  The,  54,  59 
Filmer,  Sir  R.,  4,  151 
Fitzwilliam,  John,  55,  63,  169-72 
Forbes,  Robert,  323-5,  338,  365 
Frampton,    Robert,   24,   29,   69-74, 
233,  281 
Life  of,  69  et  seq. 
Friend,  Sir  John,  217 
'  Full,  true,  and  comprehensive  view 
of  Christianity '  (Deacon),  361,368, 


Gadderar,     James,     118-9,    441-3, 

445-6 
Gandy,   Henry,  20,   119,   134,    135, 

147-52,  283,  306 
Garnett,  Thomas,  372-3 
George  I.,  3,  11,  162,  429-31 
George  II.,  336,  343 
George  III.,  368,  450 


Hall,  Hknry,  316 

Harbin.  George,  202,  203-5,  273 

Harte,  Walter,  184-6 

Hawes,  Samuel,  119, 133-7,  219, 274, 

281,  455 
Headley  in  Surrey,  255  et  seq. 
Hearne,  Thomas,  90,  111,   114,  147, 
148,  150,  177-8,  194,  200, 
206,  219,  232,  240, 409,  and 
passim 
'  Autobiography  '  and  '  Collec- 
tions,' 410,  and  passim 
'  Itinerary  of    John    Leland,' 
&c,  416 
Hereditary  Right,  3  et  seq. 
'  Hereditary     Right     of    Crown     of 

England  Asserted,'  200-3,  248 
Hickes,  George,  9,  20,  29,  56,  72,  77, 
81,     84     et    seq.,     91-112, 
118-9,    127-9,     130,     137, 
140,  143,  153-4,  219,    220, 
247,  248,  283,  290-1,  353, 
390,  394-5,  400,  401 
'  Thesaurus,'  &c,  414 
'  Anglo-Saxon     and      Moeso- 
Gothic      Grammar,'      414. 
(Other  works   under    their 
titles.) 
Hickes,  John,  92,  97-9 
Higden,  William,  148,  200 
Historical  and  Biographical  Works 

of  Nonjurors,  400-1 
1  History    of   the   Clemency   of   our 
English      Monarchs '     (E.irbery), 
312-3 
Holdsworth,  Edward,  341,  342,  416 
Hooper,  George,  45,  62,  63,  65,  66 
Hope,  John,  314 
Horsley,  Samuel,  369 
Hough,  John,  175,  181 
Howell,   Laurence,   21.   213-5,  397, 

406 
Hymns.  Ken's,  379 


500 


THE   NONJURORS 


•  Immohal  Prayers,  The,'  209,  237, 
247 

Indemnity  Act  of  1718,  431 
Independence  of  Church  in  Spirituals, 

6-7,  141.  161 
Invocation,  1'rayer  of,  295,  322 
Ipswich,  Suffragan  Bishop  of,  29)  91 
Irregular    Offshoots    of    Nonjurors, 

The  first,  346-51 
The  second,  351-75 


'  Jacobite  Conventicle,  A,'  280-7 
'  Jacobite  Liturgy,  The,'  41,  49 
Jacobite  Songs  and  Ballads,  413 
Jacobites,  The,  10,  14,  41,  59,  64,  66, 

158,  180-2,  222,  240,  359 
Jacomb,  Thomas,  205 
James  II.,  2,   10,  47-8,  51,  54,  01. 

86-7,  90,  91,  166-7,  174-5,  254-5 
Jebb,  Sir  Richard,  208 
Jebb,  Samuel,  20s,  455 
Jenkin,  Robert,  80,  81,  192-3,  273 
Jennens,  Charles,  341-2 
Johnson,  John,  of  Cranbrook,  145-6, 
888,  401 
'  Life  of,'  by  Brett,  410-1 
Johnson,   Samuel,   12   et  seq.,    122, 

156,  182,  258,  441 
'  Jure  Divino '  (Gandy),  151 


Ken,  Thomas,  24,  28,  29,  40  et  seq., 
44-5,  40,  o»,  60-9,  82,  98,  155, 
170,  170-7,  204,  233,  239,  273-4, 
878  80.  (Works  under  their  titles.) 

Kennett,  White,  5,  43,  95-7,  109, 
191,  212,  847 

Kenyon,  Roger,  200  7 

Kettlewell,  John,  14,  58,  65,  131, 
1.--:;  8,  170,209,  284  :..  217.  268, 
880    1.    (Works  under  their  titles.) 

Kidder,  Richard,  204 

King,  William 


Lamm,  John,  i  i,  26,  i  L,  78  82 
Lambeth  Chapel,  280  2 
Land,  William,  82 

I. aim  ik>,  ,  Rog<  i .  288,  '■''■'>'•     1 
Law,  William.  '.'     ! 

842,    886  90,    .'(97,     100, 

Nonjuring,  268  70 
'  '-ay    Bi  !.     Lau- 


'  Layman's  Apology,  A'  (I'odmore), 

374-5 
Lee,  Francis,  250-4,  266,  283,  391 

'Life  of  Kettlewell,'  69,  410 
and  passim 
Lee,  Thomas,  265 
Lee,  William,  283 
Leslie,   Charles,   156-62,   221,   239. 

261,  266,281,  297-300,  307.  892    1. 

(Works  under  their  titles.) 
•Letter  out  of  Suffolk'  (Wagstaffe), 

117 
Lindsay,  John,  222, 333-5 
Liturgical    Studies     of    Nonjurors, 

142-3,  144,  357 
Liturgies    used    by    the     Primitive 

Church,  A   Collection  of   (Brett), 

402 
Llovd,  William  (of  Norwich),  24,  29. 

38-46,  66,  81,  88,  263 
Lloyd,   William  (of  St.  Asaph),  25, 

48,  73,  231,  282,  422 
London    as    a     Nonjuring    Centre, 

282-8 
Lowndes,  Ralph,  270-1 
'  Lyon  in  Mourning,  The,'  323 


Magdalen    Collec.e,     Oxford,    71. 

173-5 
Manchester    and    Jacobitism.    280, 

343-4,  360-2 
'  Manual   for  Winchester  Scholar   ' 

(Ken),  378-9 
Marshall,  Nathanael,  110-1.  284 
Mary  II.,  3 

Mary  d!  Modena,  102,  167 
Mawman,  Timothy,  806,  B28 
'  Measures  of  Christian   Obedience  ' 

(Kettlewell),  154 
'  Middle  State  '  (Campbell),  402-4 
Milbourne,  Luke,  39 
Mill,  John,  181 

Millington,  James,  270,  373.  :;7  I 
Mixed  Ohalice,  The,  292,  297,  300, 

:;:;7.  in 
Moor,  Jonathan 
Morley,  Geori  e,  L7Q 


I  r,  '.in.  no.   L80,  181, 

164,  202  B,  286,  289,  211  60,  959, 
261,274,276,881     I.   (Works  under 
thai]  1 
Newmai  ih,  Timothy,  •"•■'•<>  1 
Nicolson,  William.  109,  289,  185  6 

,Vc.'  (Spini  k<    j 


INDEX 


501 


Nobleman,  Nonjuring,  271  et  seq. 
Non-Abjurors,  3 
Non-Usagers,  306 


Oath  of  Allegiance,  2,  3,  26-7,  34, 
77,  80,  81,  and  passim 
Abjuration,  2,  3,  and  passim 
Oblatory  Prayer  (Holy  Communion), 

292,  295 
Oratories,   Nonjurors',    281-4,   356, 

366 
Ornie,  Eobert,  221-2 
'  Orthodox  British  Church,'  370,  374 
'  Over- IPs    Convocation   Book,'    36, 

115,  117 
Oxford  Movement,  The,  18 
Oxford,  on  Non-resistance,  4 

Attractions  of,  to  Nonjurors, 

179-80,  231 
Authorities  favourable  to  Non- 
jurors, 180-3 
Stronghold     of     Jacobitism, 
180-3,  186 


Pamax,  J.  H.,  267 

Panting,  Matthew,  182 

Parker,    Samuel,    the     elder,    174, 

260 
Parker,  Samuel,  the  younger,  259- 

60 
Parkyns,  Sir  William,  124-6,  217 
Passive    Obedience,    3,    6,    81,   and 

passim 
'  Passive     Obedience,     History     of ' 

(Collier),  208 
Patrick,  Simon,  5 
Patristic  Studies,  400  et  seq. 
'  Pattern    for    Young   Students '  (A. 

Bonwicke),  257,  263 
Penitent,  Forms  of  Admission  of  a, 

287-8,  357 
Pepys,  Samuel,  130,  275-6 
'  Persuasive  to  Royalists  '  (Collier), 

281 
Phvsicians,    Nonjuring,     113,    218, 

250,  266-8,  356,  362,  363 
Pinchbeck,  Martin,  215-6 
Podmore,  Thomas,  373-5 
Poetical  Works  of  Nonjurors,  411-3 
Ken's,  411-2 
Fenton's,  412 
Byrom's,  412-3 
Harte's,  413 
'  Practical     Treatise     on    Christian 

Perfection'  (Law),  385-6 


Practical    and    Devotional    Works, 
378-91 
Ken's,  378-80 
Kettlewell's,  380-1 
Nelson's,  381-4 
Spinckes',  384-5 
Law's,  385-90 
Seller's,  390 

edited  by  Nonjurors,  390-1 
Prayer-Book    of   1549,   291-2,   293, 
296 
of   1718  (Nonjurors'),  293-5, 

301 
of    1734    (Deacon's),    257-9, 

359 
of  1761  (Cartwright's),  372 
Prayer   for   the   Faithful  Departed, 
292 
for  the  Descent  of  the  Spirit 
upon  the  Elements,  292 
'  Preservative  against  the  Nonjurors  ' 

(Hoadly),  110 
Preston  Plot,  The,  50,  52,  53 
Price,  Kenrick,  363-5,  370 
Printers,  Nonjuring,  261-3 
Protestantism  of    Nonjurors,   93-4, 

129,  145   and  passim 
Pryrne,  Abraham  de  la,  289 
Public  Worship,  8,  280-1,  331 
Purgatory,  355-6 


Rattkay,  Thomas,  443,  447 
Bawlinson,  Richard,  194,  269,  283, 
318-20 
Thomas,  318,  344-5 
'  Reasons      for       Restoring      some 

Prayers,'  &c.  (Collier),  295-6 
Rebellion  of  1715,  11,  19,  336,  430-1 

of  1745,  360,  373,  448-9 
'  Records  of  the  New  Consecrations,' 

84-91 
'  Reflections  on  Learning  '  (Baker), 

416 
'  Regale    and    Pontificate  '    (Leslie), 

126, 157 
Regency  Scheme,  27,  34 
Relief    of    the     Distressed     Clergy, 

Scheme  for,  131,  155,  263-4 
Revolution,  The  English,  10,  26,  and 

passim 
Rome,  Church  of,  12,  146,  451,  and 

2>assim 
Roper,  Francis,  197 
Rose,  Alexander,  420-6,  432-7 
Ross,  Arthur,  419,  133 
Royal  Supremacy,  The,  89  and  passim 


502 


THE   NONJURORS 


Russell,  Lord  William,  5,  154,  171 

Lady  Rachel,  171,  172 
Russia,  Holy  Governing  Synod   of, 
4G4 


Sage,  John,  437-"J 

St.     John's     College,     Cambridge, 
Socii  ejecti,  187  et  seq. 
Baker's  'History of,'  410,  and 
passim 
Salmon,  Nathanael,  218 
Bancroft,  William,  24,29,  31-8,  40-1, 
4G,  62-3,  88,  113,   117,  164,  223, 
867,  280,  282,  421 
Sanderson,  Robert,  4 
Schism,  Nonjurors  on,  7-8 
Schoolmasters,    Nonjuring,     255-6, 

258-9,  204-6 
'  Sclater's    Original  Draught  of  the 

Primitive  Church,'  404-6 
Scotch  Nonjurors,  118-9,  418-50 

Bishops,     312.     313-4,    326, 

420-5,  434,  435,  445-8 
Service-Book  of  1637,  444 
Scott,  John,  28,  108 
Seabury,  Samuel,  3(59-71 
Seller,  Abednego,  219-20,  390 
'  Serious  Call,  A '  (Law),  386-9 
Services  in  Nonjuring  Oratories  in 
London,  286-8,  324-5 
outside  London,  288-90,  340 
Sharp,  John,  16-7,  20,  248,  264,  435 
Sheridan,  William,  60 
Sherlock,  Thomas,  17,  448  9 
Sherlock,  William,  5,  17,  37,  60, 115, 

207, 233 
Shottesbrooke    (in   Berkshire),  157,  ' 

161,  206,  229  et  seq. 
'  Sick  Man  Visited,  The '  (Spinckes) 

384 
Skinner,  John,  424-5,  112 
Smith,    George,    320-3,    324,    409 

447-8 
Smith,  Thomas,  45,  172-8,  410 
Snatt,  William,  124,  216  8,  306 
Boame,  Moses,  288-9 
Soldiers,  Nonjuring,  268  4 
Somers,  Lord.  96 
Sophia,  The  ElectreflS,  10 
South,  Bobert,  28 
Bpeed,  Qeorge,  266 
Bpincke  .  Nathanael,  9,  119,  129  88, 
276,  807,  BW  6,  891,896 
on  ii  16,  303 

and    1 1 1  •  -     Baitera    Church. 

287 


Stillingrleet.  Edward,  5,  207 
Stuarts,  The,  9-10,  40,  179,  41k,  and 

passim 
Suffragan    Bishops    (under     Henrv 

VIII.'s  Act),  29,  89,  90-1,  191-2", 

316 
'Synopsis  Canonum '  (L.  Howell), 

406 


Talbot.  John.  348-50 
Talbot,  William,  94,  95 
Taylor,  Ralph,  203,  311-2,  340 
Tenison,  Thomas,  73,  139,  141 
'  Terras  Filius  '  (N.  Amherst),  180 
'  Thesaurus,'  etc.  (Hickes),  10U.  130 
Thetford,  Suffragan  Bishop  of,  29, 

91,  119 
Thomas,  William,  24,  25,  74-8 
'  Three    Letters    to    the    Bishop  of 

Bangor  '  (Law),  397-8 
Tillotson,  John,  5,  28,  100 

233,  247 
Toleration  Act  (Scotland),  of  1712. 

428-9,  430 
'  Tradition    Necessary,'  4c.    (Brett). 

297 
Trelawney,  Sir  J.,  25 
Trumbull,  Charles,  223 
Turner,  Francis,  24,  29,  34,  40  56, 

62,  80,  81,  113,  171,  177,  181,  203, 

282 
Turner,  Thomas,  54,  60,  62,  03.  181, 

242 


'  Unity  of  the  Christian  Priesthood  ' 
(Bisbie),  225,  234 

onahleneBB  of  a  New  Sepa- 
ration '  (Stillingfleet),  198,  208 
Usages  Controversy,  The,  290-308 
The  Four  Points,  291 
Rise  of,  292-5 
Tracts  on,  295-301 
Usagers  victors  in,  300-8 
Efforts  to  ,nd.  B21-2 
in  Scotland,  440,  443-5 


•View  ot    tin    English  Constitution  ' 
(Higden),  148,200 

'  View    of    the    I'ontiticatc,'    Ac.   (I,. 

Eowell),  397 
•  Vindieanon  of  the  Deprived  Bishops' 

(Dodwrlli,  150,  I.':!! 

W.m.si  u  i  k,  Thomas,  tin    elder,  -9. 

11-2  s.  •.•DC,   7 


INDEX 


503 


Wagstaffe,    Thomas,    the   younger, 

305,  307,  325,  336-9 
Wake,  William,  191,  435,  464-5 
Warburton,  William,  195 
Warming-pan  Story,  10 
Waterland,  Daniel,  322,  401 
Watson,  John,  226 
Welton,  Kichard,  283,  287,  346-9 
Weymouth,     Viscount,     202,     204, 

272-4 
Wharton,  Henry,  32,  108,  165 


Wheatley,  Charles,  353 
Wheler,  Sir  George,  109 
Whiston,  William,  195,  258-9 
William  III.,  2,  3,  10,  27,  239, 422-4 
Winchilsea,  Heneage,   second   Earl 

of,  199 
Winchilsea,   Heneage,   fourth    Earl 

of,  119,  133,  135,  274-5 
Wood,  Anthony,  50,  147,  169 
Wordsworth,  Christopher,  91 
Wynne,  Hugh,  268-9 


PRINTED  BY 

BPOTTISWOODE  AND  CO.  LTD.,  NEW-STREET  SQUARE 

LONDON 


RETURN 
TO— ^ 


Nt^e 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5                                ( 

5 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

SENT  ON  ILL 

SEP  1  6  1998 

U.  C.  BERKELE\ 

FORM  NO.  DD  19 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CQDb?Mb3i4D 


111 


M18CM90 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


